Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time upon Thursday 19 February.

LONDON TRANSPORT (NO. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time upon Tuesday 17 Feburary.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered upon Thursday 19 February.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (NO. 2) (By Order)

BRITISH RAILWAYS (PENSIONS SCHEMES) BILL (By Order)

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL (By Order)

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)

LLOYD'S BILL (By Order)

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 19 February.

LLOYDS BANK BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday 17 February.

Oral Answers to Questions — Northern Ireland

Security

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement about the security of the Province, with particular reference to the border area.

Mr. Molyneaux: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on frontier security.

Mr. Dunlop: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he remains satisfied with the state of security in Northern Ireland, in the light of the recent murder of Sir Norman Stronge and his son.

Rev. Ian Paisley: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Humphrey Atkins): I have to report that since I last answered questions nine people have died as a result of terrorist violence. They include Sir Norman Stronge, his son James, who was a member of the RUC Reserve, and six other members of the security forces. Attacks on commercial and business premises also occurred, and, although much damage was done, a number of attacks were foiled by the bravery and skill of the ammunition technical officers.
Since the lull at the time of the prison hunger strike, terrorist organisations have clearly renewed their activities. However, they have continued to suffer reverses.
Nearly 2,000 lbs of explosive material was seized near Ardglass in January, and other stocks of munitions have also been seized. A 600 lb culvert bomb was successfully disarmed near Bessbrook, together with an associated booby trap device.
Fifty-six people have been charged with serious crime, including five with murder and 13 with attempted murder. These include three men charged following the attack on Mr. and Mrs. McAliskey near Coalisland.
I have said before that neither I nor the security forces can be satisfied so long as anybody is killed or injured by terrorist violence. But it is the fact that the level of violence so far this year is lower than this time last year. This confirms me in my conviction that the course on which the security forces are set is the right one. The Chief Constable and the GOC are satisfied that they have sufficient resources on the ground. I know that they will not be distracted from their tasks by danger or provocation, and I call on all people of good will in Northern Ireland to give them full support.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call first the four hon. Members whose questions are being answered.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is there evidence since the Dublin summit and the murders that my right hon. Friend has mentioned that more is really being done by the Republic


to secure its side of the frontier from terrorist activities and to speed the surrender to justice of the terrorists there harboured?

Mr. Atkins: There is a question later on the Order Paper on this issue. Both the Chief Constable and the GOC advise me that the co-operation that they are receiving in cross-border security activities from the Republic is increasing all the time.

Mr. Molyneaux: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that any measures designed to eliminate killer gangs in the greater Belfast area will not result in any weakening of the defence of the frontier? Will he assure the House that everything possible will be done to increase security in both spheres?

Mr. Atkins: We are conscious of the need to maintain a high level of security force presence in border areas. Both the Chief Constable and the GOC have that in mind. Without going into details, which I know the hon. Gentleman would not wish me to do, that is being done.

Mr. Dunlop: As the RUC was successful in ramming one of the escape vehicles after the murders of Sir Norman Stronge and his son, will the Secretary of State say how many rounds of ammunition were fired by the RUC and how many were fired by the terrorists? Will he inform us if the second police car was engaged in the attack as well? This is an important aspect of that monstrous and savage crime. Will the Secretary of State please make a statement about it?

Mr. Atkins: Without notice, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the details for which he asks, but I shall furnish him with them later, in whatever form he finds most appropriate.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the first police car was rammed by the terrorists when they were attempting to escape, and an exchange of fire followed. It was unfortunate that the terrorists managed to make their escape. It is to be hoped that on future occasions they will not be so fortunate as they were on that occasion.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Secretary of State confirm or deny that the army patrol, which was to observe Tynan Abbey on the night of that atrocious murder of Sir Norman Stronge and his son James, was being wined and dined at a well-known Republican house in that area? Will he also deny or confirm that the helicopter which came to the assistance of the RUC ran out of fuel and had to return to base? Will he tell us what action has been taken against the officer who was responsible for the patrol not being in position on the night of that terrible incident?

Mr. Atkins: I never give details in the House of the security force operations, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, I cannot understand why it is in the interests of anyone to make such charges.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Cover-up.

Mr. Fitt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Antrim North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has said that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is a liar.

Rev. Ian Paisley: So he is.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Did the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) make that statement?

Rev Ian Paisley: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I made that statement because it is true.

Mr. Peter Robinson: So it is.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) knows that he must withdraw that remark at once.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I have no intention of withdrawing the truth. Evidently, the Secretary of State prefers—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I name Rev. Ian Paisley for gross discourtesy to the Chair. I call upon a Minister to move the appropriate motion.

Mr. Peter Robinson: My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is telling the truth.

Mr. Stan Thorne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: There can be no points of order at this stage.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Jopling): I beg to move,
That Rev. Ian Paisley be suspended fron the service of the House.
Question put:
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr. Le Marchant and Mr. Berry were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, and Mr. Peter Robinson was appointed Teller for the Noes, but no Member being willing to act as a second Teller for the Noes, Mr. Speakerdeclared that the Ayes had it.

Question agreed to.

The hon. Member withdrew.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Under Standing Order No. 8, I believe that you have the power to extend Question Time. This incident was unlooked for by the House. Because of the argument, hon. Members could be deprived of the opportunity to ask questions. Therefore, I suggest to you Mr. Speaker, that you add the time that has been taken from questions to the end of Question Time in order to help the House.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. That power relates to private notice questions rather than to Question Time. All the precedents are that when such an incident happens, it comes out of Question Time. We shall now continue with questions.

Mr. McCusker: Does the Secretary of State agree that the identity of most of the men involved in the killing of some of my constituents, including Sir Norman and James Stronge, is known, not only to the security forces on both sides of the border, but to Ministers on both sides of the border? Is it not deplorable that all my constituents can do is wait until someone else is killed?

Mr. Atkins: I do not know the names of any of the criminals. If I did, I would inform the security forces. I have no doubt that there are strong suspicions, and I hope very much that evidence will be produced so that the guilty people can be convicted.

Mr. Kilfedder: In view of the success of the operation by the SAS against the Iranian Embassy terrorists in London last year, and the findings of the court that the members of the SAS were not guilty of murder in the circumstances of the siege when they shot the gunmen, will the right hon. Gentleman deploy enough units of the SAS in Northern Ireland to deal effectively and immediately with the terrorists, particularly along the border of West Belfast and Crossmaglen?

Mr. Atkins: As I have said, the Chief Constable and the GOC are satisfied that they have sufficient resources on the ground. I emphasise that all members of the Security Forces are subject to the law, like everyone else.

Mr. Concannon: Is the Secretary of State aware that many of us believe that cross-border co-operation is getting better all the time? However, will he nevertheless keep that matter at the top of the agenda in any discussions with Dublin, because it is important that we have as much co-operation as possible with the South over security?

Mr. Atkins: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I agree that co-operation is improving all the time. It is a matter that we keep constantly before us in our discussions with the authorities south of the border.

Mr. Fitt: Does the Secretary of State accept that there are two malign forces in Northern Ireland—one led by the IRA and the other by paramilitary leaders, who are in some cases elected by the Unionist Loyalists—and that they feed off each other? Is he aware that members of the IRA murder policemen, UDR men and innocent civilians and that that leads to a reaction from the men who lead illegal armies up hills in County Antrim and who refuse to recognise the authority of this House? Why does the Secretary of State find it so difficult to ban the activities of the Ulster Defence Association, when that association is clearly identified with some of the most atrocious murders committed in Northern Ireland and in particular the attempted murder of Bernadette Devlin? Will the Secretary of State give an undertaking that the sheer weight of numbers in the UDA will not prevent him from bringing into action all the forces of law and order to defeat the UDA, the IRA and any other paramilitary organisation that there may be in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Atkins: Without agreeing with every detail of what the hon. Gentleman says, I state at once that the size of an organisation has nothing to do with whether it is proscribed. The test of proscription is whether an organisation is actively encouraging, supporting or engaged in terrorist activities. Any organisation that is is liable to be proscribed. The most important thing is to prevent people from committing crimes, and, if they do commit them, whoever they are and wherever they come from, to bring them swiftly to justice. That is what the main thrust of our efforts is directed towards.

Unemployed Persons

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people aged under 21 years in Northern Ireland are unemployed; and what percentage of the work force this represents.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): The monthly unemployment statistics do not show separately people aged under 21. The figure for January 1981 for unemployed persons under 20 was 20,754. This represents 3·6 per cent. of all employees in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Cox: Is the Minister aware that the significance of his reply is that, despite all the problems in Northern Ireland, there is still no hope of meaningful employment for thousands of young men and women? Is he not aware that Northern Ireland cries out for a stable industrial base that offers employment and training and that it wants to

get away from the utter stupidity of paying millions of pounds to keep people in unemployment? When will that message be understood by the Government?

Mr. Butler: I agree that the need is for a stable industrial base. That is what our policies are designed to procure. In the meantime we are taking steps to give employment to young people. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we have increased the number of places on the youth opportunities programme by about 40 per cent. since the previous Administration were in power.

Mr. Bradford: What steps does the Minister intend to take to rejuvenate the construction industry in Northern Ireland? How many jobs have been lost in that industry since the moratorium was applied in July 1980?

Mr. Butler: That question arises under the hon. Gentleman's name later. I shall answer it then.

Mr. Kilfedder: Does the Minister agree that the proposed expansion of the youth opportunities programme from 7,000 to 10,000 places is inadequate to deal with the appalling unemployment that exists for young people in the Province? Will he set up many more community workshops to help young unemployed people to learn industrial skills and arrange to increase the number of places at Govenment training centres?

Mr. Butler: With the resources available, the increase of 3,000 places on the youth opportunities programme is sufficient at this time, especially bearing in mind the resources that we are putting behind industrial development.

Mr. Pendry: Is the Minister aware that in addition to 10 per cent. of the unemployed being school leavers, 30 per cent. are under 21? Does he not recognise that by diminishing the training boards and Enterprise Ulster he is throwing many more young people on to the streets, which must in turn worsen the security situation?

Mr. Butler: Enterprise Ulster deals more with the long-term adult unemployed, although a few young people are given jobs by the scheme. We are continuing strongly with the Government's training programme at Government training centres and with employers. The schemes are fully supported and are doing valuable work.

Irish Congress of Trades Unions

Mr. Stallard: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next expects to meet the officers of the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trades Unions.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins: I have no immediate plans for a formal meeting.

Mr. Stallard: When the Secretary of State next meets the officers of the Northern Ireland Committee will he explain the Government's statement last July that, although unemployment in Northern Ireland was grim, there was a silver lining? Is he aware that since then the problem has reached crisis proportions and is undermining all the attempts of those who are trying to reconcile the two communities? Will he act on the alternatives being proffered by the Northern Ireland Committee?

Mr. Atkins: I shall listen to anything that is said to me, but whether I act upon it depends on what it is.

Mr. Concannon: Is the Secretary of State aware that when I last met NICICTU three weeks ago it was very depressed by the situation in Northern Ireland and that one reason was that it saw no one fighting its corner for jobs in Northern Ireland? What hope will the Minister give on Monday to the group of trade unionists coming from Northern Ireland?

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend met the whole Committee last week and there was a useful exchange of views. I am happy to say that when I talk to the Committee I do not find quite the amount of pessimism that I detect in the right hon. Gentleman.

De Lorean Car Company Limited

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland why, in view of the statement he made in August 1980 that the Government's obligation to consider applications for further financial assistance for the de Lorean Company had been discharged, he decided to consider a further application from that company.

Mr. Adam Butler: I considered a further application for a Government guarantee in respect of commercial loans to help the company resolve a short-term cash problem and take the DMG 12 car through tho market launch. I have now agreed in principle to the provision of a time-limited guarantee for commercial loans of up to £10 million, subject to certain acknowledgements which record the company's acceptance that neither the Northern Ireland Development Agency nor the Department of Commerce has any financial obligations towards the company and which confirm that royalties remain payable as agreed.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Does not my hon. Friend realise that those undertakings were given to the House six months ago? Is there not a danger that my right hon. Friend, in his dealings with Mr. De Lorean, will come to resemble the young lady from Riga who went for a ride on a tiger? Is my hon. Friend aware that Mr. De Lorean apparently has a T-shirt on which is emblazoned the slogan "I am a con man"? Would he consider sending him a character reference? Can he seriously give the House the assurance that it needs that we shall have an opportunity to debate the matter and vote on it before any further money is given to that con man?

Mr. Butler: My hon. Friend does not help his cause. It is a serious matter whether more money is put behind that project. In fact, no more money is being provided but purely a Government guarantee behind commercial loans to help the company to launch a car that it believes has good market prospects. The obligations were removed in the agreements last summer but, because of certain press statements about the beliefs of one or two parties to the arrangement, I felt it necessary to come to a firm written understanding with Mr. de Lorean that no such obligations now exist.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is the Minister aware that a fraction of the sums that have been invested or, as the case may be, sunk in de Lorean would be sufficient to produce an improvement in links, especially the transport links, between the Province and the mainland, with the result that far more employment than can be envisaged from de Lorean would be created and maintained?

Mr. Butler: The original decision to support that project was taken by the previous Labour Administration. Last year, the Government were faced with an approach for further funds. I have been approached again. I have explained to the House what our practice has been in the circumstances. I must make it clear that we have told the company that the Government have made a sufficient provision of public funds to support the DMG12 car project, and that it must look elsewhere for further funding. The company accepts that.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that, if Mr. de Lorean requires further money for his cash flow problems and approaches the Government for a further guarantee, no such guarantee will be given unless the contract, which is so favourable to Mr. de Lorean, is renegotiated?

Mr. Butler: I made it clear in my response to the previous supplementary question that no more selective assistance would be given to the DMG12 car project. The company is well aware of that.

Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister confirm that the jobs involved in that company are highly expensive, no matter how welcome they are, at £77 million? Will he confirm also that de Lorean, contrary to statements by members of the Minister's Department of Commerce, has given the fullest information? Will he confirm that audited accounts are now available, contrary to the accounts of the Northern Ireland Development Agency issued yesterday? Will he ensure that the Comptroller and Auditor General has full right of access to the accounts and circumstances of that firm?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the jobs have been expensive. But again, I must stress that the decision that I have taken has not been to provide more money, but to ensure that the car comes to market launch. If we had not taken that decision, there would have been serious unemployment consequences in Northern Ireland. The House must recognise that fact. I am satisfied with the information that my Department received in coming to the decision.

Mr. Adley: In his previous incarnation, my hon. Friend will remember that not only did the Department of Industry not take steps to save MG, but it almost deliberately drove it into extinction. Is he aware that some of us who watched that with dismay now watch the saga with de Lorean with even more dismay? Will he allow me, and perhaps one or two of my knowledgeable constituents, to visit de Lorean so that we can look at the project and determine whether my constituents are receiving good value for their taxes?

Mr. Butler: My hon. Friend knows that his interpretation of the Government's attitude towards MG is different from that of Ministers. I am sure that if my hon. Friend writes to de Lorean, that company would welcome his visit to the factory at an appropriate time.

Mr. Concannon: The Minister must be aware that there is more to this issue than simply the de Lorean project. It has always been recognised that the project would have spin-off effects both in Northern Ireland and in the remainder of Britain. Jobs both in Northern Ireland and in Britain are affected by the spin-off from that project. For example, the steel industry in Scunthorpe will provide the steel for the project. About 80 per cent. of the


company's requirements come from the United Kingdom. We have to consider the balance sheet of security as well as politics. The car is coming on stream. While I was in America last week, there was a great deal of publicity for the car, which is eagerly awaited. We must remember that we are talking about employment in Northern Ireland. We should give the car a fair wind and all the help that we can—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Even a Front Bench spokesman must ask a question, rather than have an argument.

Mr. Butler: The right hon. Memberfor Mansfield (Mr. Concannon, takes the right attitude towards that car.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of my hon. Friend's reply, I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment of the House.

Political Institutions

Mr. Latham: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he envisages making any early progress in evolving new political institutions in the Province; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the under Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he plans any administrative changes in the governing of the Province.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins: The Government continue to seek a transfer of significant powers to locally elected representatives on a basis acceptable to both sides of the community. However, in the present absence of agreement among the Northern Ireland political parties on how those powers should be exercised, I am considering how to improve the existing administrative arrangements for the government of the Province.

Mr. Latham: Following the unsuccessful White Paper initiative, is my right hon. Friend still trying to break the log jam of resentment and suspicion about this matter and to move to a better structure of government in Northern Ireland? Or has he given up initiatives in despair and is settling down to a long period of indefinite direct rule?

Mr. Atkins: No, Sir. The Government have not given up in despair. I propose to remain in close touch with party leaders in Northern Ireland. A long-term answer can come only if the parties in Northern Ireland reach agreement on how the country should be governed and how power could be exercised by locally elected people.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Can my right hon. Friend see any overriding reason why the current proportion of elected representatives on area boards should not be expanded from their current one-third of the boards?

Mr. Atkins: That matter, and a variety of other matters connected with the governing of the Province are currently engaging my attention.

Mr. James A. Dunn: Does the Secretary of State realise that, unless he solves the problems related to security, the prospect of changing events in the Province are very much diminished. Unless he treats with an equal hand not only the IRA but other terrorist organisations, he will find that faith in his proposals will diminish considerably.

Mr. Atkins: Of course, the security position bears very much upon the matter. That is why I am glad to note that

for a number of years the level of violence has been steadily diminishing—which is what everybody wants. It is part of the Government's business to be as even-handed as possible.

Mr. Fitt: Will the Secretary of State be totally honest with the House and say that the search for new political institutions in Northern Ireland has come to a full stop, pending the outcome of the talks now taking place between this Government and the Government of the Republic? Will he confirm that there is no possibility of creating new political institutions in advance of the outcome of those talks? Will he take it from me, in all sincerity, that his Government, and especially the Prime Minister, need to create a great deal more confidence in Northern Ireland that nothing underhand is taking place in the talks? Does he appreciate that the Opposition should be made fully aware of what is happening on political progress in Northern Ireland? Nothing underhand must be done that will support the attitude expressed by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley).

Mr. Atkins: I would not say that the search for a way forward in improving the government of the Province has come to a full stop. A comma might be more appropriate. I sincerely hope that discussions between this Government and the Government of the Republic will continue on a wide variety of matters for a long time. I hope those discussions will not come to an end, but it would be wrong to say that we should not seek a way forward until they have come to an end.

Mr. Kilfedder: On humanitarian grounds, will the right hon. Gentleman bring forward the date of the local government election on 20 May by at least two months? In that way, the political shenanigans and the slanging match between the Democratic Unionist Party and the Official Unionist Party will cause the least possible damage to Ulster and its people.

Mr. Atkins: I had not thought of that idea. I take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said. I dare say that we shall hear the hon. Gentleman's voice between now and 20 May.

Mr. McCusker: Will the Secretary of State confirm that most of the many people whom he meets as he travels throughout the Province want nothing other than to be governed as their fellow citizens are governed in the rest of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Atkins: That view is held by a number of people, but I am not in a position to say that I believe it to be the majority view.

Maze Prison

Mr. Stephen Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the continuing unrest in Maze prison.

Mr. Stanbrook: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the prisoners who are refusing to comply with prison rules at Maze prison.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Alison): The dirty protest in support of the campaign for political status is continuing. There are at


present 405 prisoners involved, 61 fewer than when the Maze hunger strike ended on 18 December and 100 fewer than the peak number reached early in the hunger strike.
As my right hon. Friend has already told the House, we had hoped that the ending of the hunger strikes would be followed by the ending of all the protests in the prisons. However, the process of return to normality broke down on 27 January, when 96 prisoners who were in clean, furnished cells started to damage the cells and to break up the furniture. It had become clear the previous weekend that the prisoners were seeking a regime that was different from the normal regime which my right hon. Friend described in his statement of 4 December.
On 5 February there was an announcement, said to be on behalf of the protesting prisoners, that a further hunger strike would begin on 1 March, in support of their claim to be treated as political prisoners.
I very much regret that the prisoners appear to have decided to resort to this kind of action a second time. The Government have declared the principles by which they are guided. It is these principles that the prisoners are once again challenging. We have shown once that we shall not compromise on them, and shall, if we must, do so again. I find it difficult to believe that the prisoners do not understand this.

Mr. Ross: Will the Minister accept that I congratulate the Northern Ireland Office on the promptness of its publicity in response to claims emanating from the Maze prison? Last week I was in the United States of America and I found that to be the case. Does anyone who holds a responsible opinion, particularly in the Catholic Church, support the prisoners' contention that they were tricked into a settlement when they called off the hunger strike in late December?

Mr. Allison: I know of no individual who has made any such claim. I have never heard such a claim articulated in any rational or meaningful form

Mr. Stanbrook: Will my hon. Friend resist any temptation to make any progressive and humane reforms in the prison administration of Northern Ireland until the present indiscipline has come to an end?

Mr. Alison: No. The Government will not be influenced against pursuing rational and proper courses by the illegal activities of prisoners.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: How can the Government hope for a return to normality in the Maze prison, when they continue to accord special category status to several hundred prisoners in defiance of their own principle that such status is unjustified and unacceptable?

Mr. Alison: In principle, special category status was abolished five years ago. The Government have accelerated the practice of phasing it out. That demonstrates clearly the Government's rejection of the concept of special category status. As long ago as 1975 a previous Secretary of State established the practice of leaving sentenced prisoners to serve out their time in the conditions under which they had embarked on them. A retrospective alteration of those terms gives rise to far wider considerations, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indicated to the right hon. Gentleman in her reply to him on 15 February.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State accept my assurance that he will receive

the same firm support from this House that he enjoyed before, and that we very much welcome his constant stand? Should not my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State consult his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary so that prison reforms in every part of the United Kingdom can march together?

Mr. Alison: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for his assurance—which I am sure is valid—that the House completely supports the maintenance of the rule of law and the authority of the lawfully elected Government in the face of violence. As regards my hon. Friend's second question, there is a special situation in Northern Ireland because many young prisoners are serving very long sentences. To some extent, that distinguishes Northern Ireland from the rest of the British Isles.

Prime Minister (Engagements)

Ql. Mr. Meacher: asked the Prime Minister, if she will list her official engagements for 12 February.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the Prime Minister of Mauritius. This evening I shall preside at a dinner given in his honour.

Mr. Meacher: Why does the Prime Minister continue to refuse to reflate on the ground that it always leads to worse inflation, when in fact all previous reflations—with the exception of the disastrous Barber reflation—have not led to a surge of inflation or to higher unemployment? Does not the right hon. Lady see that what the country desperately needs now is not an ever greater squeeze on credit leading to ever-increasing unemployment, but an expansion of credit provided that such expansion is channelled into public as well as private investment, that would cut unemployment without being inflationary.

The Prime Minister: If we were to reflate on top of the present level of inflation it would lead to hyperinflation and unemployment. There is no doubt about that.

Mr. David Steel: Will the Prime Minister reconsider the cost of unemployment that she gave in her speech last Thursday? This morning, an article in The Times "Business News" suggested that the total direct and indirect cost to the Government of unemployment-based on Treasury figures—was £5,000 per worker.

The Prime Minister: With respect to the right hon. Gentleman the two things are wholly different. I gave the cost of unemployment benefit coupled with social security benefit. Those figures are accurate. The right hon. Gentleman has given figures that show how the Exchequer would benefit if everyone were in work. If everyone were in work, producing goods and services that some one else could buy without subsidy, there would be no problem.

Mr. Michael Hamilton: As the Leader of the Opposition was good enough to send a message of good will and congratulations last week to the Salisbury branch of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, will the Prime Minister find time today to send a similar message of good will and congratulations to the Duke of Edinburgh, on his outstanding speech on Monday?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that in elevated situations people share the Government's thoughts that, although we wish nuclear weapons had never been invented, the potential aggressor has a large stock, and a particularly great supply of SS20s. Any Government who wish to defend their people must ensure that there are sufficient nuclear weapons to deter an aggressor.

Mr. Foot: Might it not be the case that the late Lord Louis Mountbatten knew even more about war and nuclear weapons than the Duke of Edinburgh? Might I put another question to the right hon. Lady? Since the Leader of the House stated in a notable speech that the Government are in the right frame of mind to recognise reality and to acknowledge mistakes, will the right hon. Lady reconsider the serious reply that she gave me on Tuesday about the coal industry? Does she not accept that she appeared to wash her hands of the whole issue? Will she not look afresh at the matter, recognise the seriousness of the situation, and promise that the Government will intervene?

The Prime Minister: With regard to the three matters that the right hon. Gentleman has raised, the late Lord Louis Mountbatten was never a unilateralist, nor would he ever have been. He had too much regard for the liberties of this country to lay down any weapons unilaterally. With regard to the speech by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, I wholly agree that there is excellent stuff in it. For example
An attack on inflation is an attack on unemployment, and the most enduring safeguard against unemployment would be the elimination of inflation.

Mr. Foot: Go on.

The Prime Minister: I could go on—it is such a marvellous speech. The right hon. Gentleman invites me to go on. I am ready to accept that invitation.
We must not abandon the long-term strategic approach in which we believe,
and so on.
With regard to the third part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I gave him the figures—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman asked three questions, and I intend to answer three questions. It is the Government's duty to negotiate with the chairman of the National Coal Board the amount of money for the year. This year it is £834 million. Next year it will be £882 million. Those considerable sums are paid on top of the prices paid for coal and they are sums which give coal an excellent future.

Mr. Foot: Is the right hon. Lady seriously saying that in this critical situation she will refuse to call the tripartite meetings which we had on the coal industry and which saved the coal industry following the experiences of 1974? When we came in then, we had to call those tripartite discussions to deal with the matter. That is what the right hon. Lady will have to do on this occasion. Will she not decide to do it now instead of being forced to do it later?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, and I am not forced to do many things.

Mr. Mellor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the adoption by the Labour Party of unilateral disarmament, the increasing number of Labour Back Benchers who seem to be apologists for Soviet imperialism and the increasing

number of Trotskyists being adopted to fight GLC and parliamentary seats under the Labour Party banner pose one of the greatest threats to democracy in Britain today?

The Prime Minister: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. I am sorry that the Labour Party will not be ready to defend the benefits which it enjoys under democracy.

Mr. Alton: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 12 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentlemen to the reply which I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Alton: Has the right hon. Lady had time to read The Times report this morning that the Government intend to drop their new sickness benefit scheme? Is that the case? Does she realise that if it is, the news will be received with great joy by many small businesses?

The Prime Minister: The answer is "No". It will not appear in a Bill which is due to appear immediately. New proposals have arisen which match more closely the sums which will be paid out under the scheme with the amounts which would be returned under the scheme and we are considering those further before putting them into legislative form.

Mr. Tapsell: Does anyone think that Poland would today be facing a serious threat of invasion by Russian forces if it possessed its own independent nuclear deterrent?

The Prime Minister: I think that the answer must be "No". I must make it quite clear that, while the policy of unilateralism may be espoused on the Opposition side of the House, it is totally and utterly rejected on this side.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Prime Minister find time today to read again the report of the Silver Jubilee Committee on Access for Disabled People, particularly the main recommendation that there should be legislation to strengthen the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970? Will she undertake that the Government will facilitate such legislation?

The Prime Minister: I cannot undertake to facilitate any extra legislation at the moment. I can only say that I am anxious that local authorities should provide access for the disabled, and I congratulate my own local authority on its record in this respect.

Sir William Clark: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to look again at the Scott report? Does she agree that there is a glaring unfairness between public and private pensions, because, despite what the Scott report says, private pension schemes cannot possibly afford to fund inflation-proofed pensions?

The Prime Minister: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend that private pension schemes could not possibly afford inflation-proofed pensions on the scale on which they are provided for the public service. I hope that we shall have time to discuss the Scott report thoroughly. It suggested at one point that the Government could provide a cut-off point for index linking, but no one has thought to pursue that for the time being until matters are further discussed in this House.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 12 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Wilson: Will the Prime Minister take time today to study closely the havoc which the closure of the Linwood car factory will cause to the economy of Scotland? Does she recall that when she was elected it was pointed out that her Government represented the South and the South only? Will she therefore look at what has happened in the car industry, which has been supported by the Government through British Leyland and allowed to continue at Coventry while the Scottish car industry has been smashed into the ground?

The Prime Minister: Scotland has a number of opportunities in connection with the oil industry which are not available elsewhere. Although I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the closure at Linwood, I doubt very much whether the people there would begrudge their fellow car workers a reasonable future in the plant at Ryton.

Mr. Anthony Grant: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to consider relations between Britain and Canada? Is she aware that the Canadian Prime Minister is insisting publicly that she undertook to impose a three-line Whip to put through this House his proposals on patriation of the constitution? Will she confirm that that is not correct? Will she also confirm the view of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs that the duty of this House is to consider the wishes of the Canadian people as a whole and not the diktat of Mr. Trudeau?

The Prime Minister: Three-line Whips or any other Whipping are not decided upon until some 10 days before the business of the House, when we know exactly what the position is and exactly what the request is that we may have to honour. I wholly confirm what I have said previously on this matter. We have not received any request from the Canadian Government. When we receive a request, I believe that it is our duty to deal with it as expeditiously as possible.

Mr. Parry: When the Prime Minister meets the Prime Minister of Mauritius later today, will she discuss with him the implications and the possible effect that the proposed closure of the Tate and Lyle factory will have upon ACP countries? Will she also reconsider her decision about meeting an all-party parliamentary delegation to discuss this matter, because we all believe that a Government initiative could save the refinery?

The Prime Minister: I fully expect that the Prime Minister of Mauritius will raise the question of sugar refining, although I understand that an undertaking has been given to refine most of the sugar under the ACP agreements. I believe that the hon. Gentleman represents the constituency in which the Tate and Lyle factory is found. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food flew back from Brussels to receive a delegation. I do not think that I can duplicate his receiving that delegation. I will always see the hon. Member himself in whose constituency a factory closure is about to occur.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Allan Stewart.

Mr. Foot: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already called the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Mr. Stewart). I shall call the Leader of the Opposition afterwards.

Mr. Allan Stewart: With regard to Linwood, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Secretary of State and Department of Industry will now do everything possible to put to Nissan-Datsun the fact that it could be in that company's best commercial interests to reconsider going to a green field site and intend to build on the site at Linwood, using the skilled work force there?

The Prime Minister: Linwood is, of course, located in my hon. Friend's constituency. I understand that Nissan is studying the feasibility of coming to a green field site in this country. I do not think that there is any possibility of dissuading it from that, because that is what it wants.

Mr. Foot: I thank the right hon. Lady for the generous reply which she made a few minutes ago. Will she be dealing with the correspondence herself, or will some Minister be put in charge of these requests? Will she undertake to publish each week in the Official Report the requests from all my hon. Friends to visit the factories that are due to close? May I immediately request to her to come and look at the closures in my own constituency? Will she publish her diary in the next week?

The Prime Minister: As usual, the right hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. I said that I would see the Member of a constituency in which a main factory closure occurs. A large delegation must always go to the Minister concerned, just as the main delegation went to see my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I personally shall see the Member. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman greets such a courtesy so churlishly.

Royal Family (Speech References)

Mr. James Lamond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I recall that some years ago, when I asked a question at Prime Minister's Question Time about a speech made by the Duke of Edinburgh, you quite correctly ruled that such a question was not permitted if it was critical in any way. Does that ruling still stand? Today there was a question about a speech by the Duke of Edinburgh, which brought a response from the Prime Minister. Both the question and the reply were highly complimentary, because, as it happens, what the Duke of Edinburgh said seems to agree with Tory policy. Does not that place those of us who wish to put a contrary view about a speech by the Duke of Edinburgh—which by implication would be critical—at a disadvantage, under the rules of House? Should not that point be looked at?

Mr. Speaker: The whole House is aware that I am its servant. I do my best to ensure that the rules of the House are observed. One of our fundamental rules is that any reference to a member of the Royal Family must be couched in courteous terms.

Dr. M. S. Miller: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for me to suggest that I could apply my medical services to the Secretary of State for Scotland, who was not present today or yesterday to answer questions—?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not want to enter into a discussion on private medicine today.

Business of the House

Mr. Speaker: Business Statement.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Paymaster General and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Francis Pym): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 16 FEBRUARY—Until 7 o'clock, Private Members' motions.
Second Reading of the Gas Levy Bill.
TUESDAY 17 FEBRUARY—Supply [9th Allotted Day]: Debate on an Opposition motion on the absence of effective Government action to prevent the threatened closure of Talbot Linwood, until about 7 o'clock.
Debate on an Opposition motion on EEC sugar proposals, their effect on employment in United Kingdom refineries and on the economies of developing countries. [EEC document 10009/80 will be relevant]
WEDNESDAY 18 FEBRUARY—Proceedings on the Redundancy Fund Bill and on the Iron and Steel (Borrowing Powers) Bill.
Motions on Northern Ireland orders on the Agricultural Trust and on museums.
THURSDAY 19 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Water Bill.
Proceedings on the House of Commons Members' Fund and Parliamentary Pensions Bill.
Motions on Members' salaries and pensions.
FRIDAY 20 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 23 FEBRUARY—Supply [10th Allotted Day]: Subject for debate to be announced.
[Debate on European Community Document relating to sugar:
The relevant report of the European Legislation Committee is the 2nd Report, Session 1980–81 H/C 32 paragraph 3.]

Mr. Foot: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the proposed debates for next week were drawn up before the statement from the Prime Minister earlier this afternoon about the coal industry? In our view that was an extremely serious statement, because she seemed to indicate that there was to be no attempt by the Government to alter their attitude to the coal industry and the provisions of the Coal Industry Act, which recently went through the House. Therefore, will the right hon. Gentleman consider rearranging the business for next week, or at any rate soon in the week after, so that we may have a full-scale debate on the coal industry?
In view of the right hon. Gentleman's own speech yesterday, does not he think that we should hold such a debate before the disaster happens, rather than afterwards? Does not he agree that what the Prime Minister said today is a serious declaration, which could lead to serious consequences in the coal industry? I urge him to consider rearranging the business so that we may have a full day's debate, in Government time, on the coal industry crisis.

Mr. Pym: It is right that I should consider what the right hon. Gentleman has asked for. In all frankness, I should point out that I do not think that it would be appropriate to rearrange next week's business. The right hon. Gentleman asked for a debate next week or the week after. I cannot give a commitment in that respect, because policy considerations arise, but I shall take account of his representations for a debate on the coal industry.

Obviously, that is a suitable subject for a Supply day debate, but I take note of what the right hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on the speech that he made yesterday, with its recognition that tactical changes in policy may be necessary and desirable from time to time. In that spirit of flexibility and common sense, has his attention been drawn to early-day motion 169 standing in my name and that of 90 right hon. and hon. Members, relating to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries (Amendment) Bill?
[That this House urges Her Majesty's Government to facilitate the passage of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries (Amendment) Bill which is designed to remedy the injustice done to the former owners of the assets nationalised by the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977 by the payment of grossly inadequate compensation and to propose more equitable arrangements.]
Will he facilitate the passage of that measure, bearing in mind that it is designed to remedy what Ministers themselves have described as "a gross injustice"?

Mr. Pym: I am grateful for what my right hon. and learned Friend said at the beginning of his remarks. I have noticed the early-day motion to which he referred and I recognise its importance, as well as the objective of my right hon. and learned Friend and other of my hon. Friends in bringing forward the Bill. The Government's view is that the basis of compensation for the nationalisation in 1977 of companies in the aerospace and shipbuilding industries should remain undisturbed, but I shall take note of what my right hon. and learned Friend said.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: Although renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act is not on next week's business, I understand that it will soon come before the House. Will the Leader of the House consider allowing hon. Members more time to debate the renewal of this legislation, rather than slotting it in late at night for a mere one and a half hours?

Mr. Pym: I note what the hon. Member asks for.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that foreign affairs can have a considerable impact on our country? Will he therefore arrange a debate on foreign affairs prior to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs going to the United States, so that hon. Members on the Conservative Benches will be able to express their views about the serious problem in Palestine and the need to recognise the problems of the Palestinian people?

Mr. Pym: As I said last week, I am looking for an opportunity to have a foreign affairs debate. I must tell my hon. Friend that I am afraid that I cannot arrange it before the visit to the United States of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but I am looking for a subsequent opportunity, knowing that the House would like such a debate.

Mr. John Silkin: Will the Leader of the House take steps to ensure that, so far as possible, it is the senior Minister of a Department who makes statements in the House on matters that involve hundreds of millions of pounds, or thousands of jobs? I recall that during the


period of office of the Labour Administration, my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) and I came back to the House to make statements. I am glad to see the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food here. We believed—as I think hon. Members believed—that our duty was first and foremost to the House of Commons.

Mr. Pym: That is absolutely true. All my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench take the same view. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland was occupied in a very hard day of negotiations for the fishing industry in Scotland. It seemed appropriate that a Scottish Minister should make the statement. There was also another statement yesterday, made, it is true, by the Minister of State when the Secretary of State was present. I do not think that it is right to say that every statement should be made by the Secretary of State.
The statement was about the Iron and Steel (Borrowing Powers) Bill, and it seemed appropriate for a Minister of State to make the statement and to share some of the load. I agree that the Secretary of State was present. He will make the major statements. It was stated yesterday that he will make the major statement on steel, when it comes. We shall follow that pattern, but it would be a departure from the practice of the House if the view were taken that no one except the Secretary of State, or the most senior Minister of a Department, could make a statement. On occasions the House might find itself in real difficulty. When the senior Minister was not available we would have to find someone else in any case. I hope that we can approach the matter on a common-sense basis. It is the desire that Ministers should treat the House with the appropriate courtesy, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that that is the practice.

Mr. Silkin: Yes. On yesterday's showing, however, the Secretary of State for Industry was sitting on the Front Bench. I doubt whether the House would regard an increase of £500 million as being a minor matter. I have a feeling that most hon. Members would consider it a major matter.
I have never noticed any reluctance on the part of German or French Ministers, when they have an important engagement in their own capitals, to return to address their Parliaments.

Mr. Pym: It is a matter of judgment. Everyone is aware of the protracted negotiations taking place in regard to the fishing industry. It was thought helpful for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to be involved in them. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that an extra £500 million of borrowing powers is a lot, but I remind him that one of his hon. Friends thought it a small sum. I disagree with his hon. Friend. It is a matter of judgment. We took the view that on this occasion it was appropriate for that load within the Department to be shared in the way that it was shared, but I take note of the right hon. Gentleman's representations.

Mr. Robert Adley: Has my right hon. Friend read about, or noticed, the understandable fuss that has arisen over the farcical situation in Basingstoke, where a lady who let her house

for a short period came back and was unable to re-enter it? Is he aware that this is a by-product of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act, introduced with well-meaning vigour under the Lib-Lab pact, which many people are prepared to use unscrupulously as a cheats' charter? In view of commitments by the Secretary of State for the Environment to reconsider this legislation, will my right hon. Friend invite the Secretary of State, or one of his Ministers, to report to the House next week on the progress that is being made, so that we may know where we stand?

Mr. Pym: I am sorry to hear of the difficulties being encountered by the lady in Basingstoke. I will convey to my right hon. Friend what my hon. Friend said.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Leader of the House will no doubt recollect hearing the Prime Minister say that any hon. Member who has a factory closure in his constituency can arrange to see her. As, I assume, hundreds of hon. Members on both sides will be queuing up, will the Prime Minister make a statement next week explaining how hon. Members should get in the queue, so that certain people do not get preference, and so that those who are first can be accommodated when they go to discuss the closure of factories in their constituencies?

Mr. Pym: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in saying what she did, was showing the most extreme courtesy. I have no doubt that hon. Members will respect the way in which she said it and enable it to be regarded as a practical and sensible proposition.

Mr. Christopher Murphy: I recognise my right hon. Friend's appreciation of the tenets of common sense, as recently stated. Does he agree that in the coming week a statement should be made by the Government with regard to the proposal by British Telecom to paint our telephone boxes yellow—which is ridiculous in terms of the waste of taxpayers' money and the traditions of this country?

Mr. Pym: That is a matter for British Telecom.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Should not the House debate next week the Government's new economic policy, announced by the right hon. Gentleman himself yesterday to the Putney Conservatives?

Mr. Pym: I do not wish to burden the right hon. Gentleman. If he cares to read the speech he will find that what he says is not accurate.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Will my right hon. Friend kindly remind the House what were to be the advantages of the new monster-size Hansard? If it has been found that there are none, will he consider restoring it to its former size?

Mr. Pym: It is not for me to do that. The House had a proposition before it and considered it over a long period. It eventually came to a conclusion. I must advise the House that if it were thought that there might now be a change, that would seem to me not a wise course. It would be extremely expensive.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen early-day motion 179, on used textile machinery exports:
[That this House deplores the failure of the Government to act to arrest the export of used textile and other


machinery by companies who are reducing their domestic operations due to the recession; and demands that the Government intervenes to prevent the export of the manufacturing base of the British economy.]
Will he provide Government time for a discussion of that motion, signed by over 200 hon. Members? Within eight hours of being placed on the Order Paper it had been signed by an unprecedented 180 hon. Members. Will he give time next week?

Mr. Pym: I appreciate the importance of what the hon. Gentleman asks, but I am afraid that I cannot find time for that business next week, in Government time.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: In answer to a question today my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister seemed to indicate that there would be no action to restrain the index-linking of public service pensions before a debate took place on the Scott report. Will my right hon. Friend promise an early debate on the report if that is the situation? Better still, there should be no debate on that report, and the Government should take action and reduce the linking of public sector pensions to the 6 per cent. wage norm in the public sector.

Mr. Pym: I feel sure that the House will want to debate this important report and the issues that lie behind it. I would have thought that there was a lot to be said for having a considerable degree of public debate before a debate takes place in the House. I note what my hon. Friend requests.

Mr. loan Evans: Will the right hon. Gentleman look again at the suggestion that there should be a statement by the Government, or an early debate, on closures in the coal industry? There have already been massive steel closures in South Wales, where unemployment is reminiscent of the situation in the 1930s. Whole communities are waiting for news about whether their pits are to be closed, when such a decision is completely unnecessary. Will there be an early debate on the issue?

Mr. Pym: I appreciate fully the importance of what has happened in the coal industry. Responsibility for the industry is pre-eminently a matter for the National Coal Board, but I have noted the desire for a debate. We shall have to consider how that can be arranged.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Since it appears that public pressure may well knock on the head British Telecom's daft scheme for painting our telephone boxes yellow, will my right hon. Friend bring forward an early debate on the Second Reading of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris), which would prevent the petrol monopolies from stealing the gallon and force-feeding us litres, from the fourth quarter of this year?

Mr. Pym: I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend, but I do not think that I can find Government time for that Bill.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: As the Leader of the House is seemingly the Minister in charge of the rotating Tory policy, and as he has now put himself in charge of the necessary adjustments to prevent that policy going round in complete circles, will he assure us that he will now pay attention to the question of pit closures and the future of the coal industry? Is he aware that the Government are mainly responsible for the threat to about 50 pits because of the way in which they have run down

many of the factories that hitherto burnt coal? Is he further aware that those pits are now victims of the recession, despite high productivity levels during the past two years? Will he now ensure that there is an early debate, before the various mining unions and the Coal Board meet Ministers, so that the House can shed more light on this seeming confusion?

Mr. Pym: The hon. Gentleman forgets the scale of closures that took place under earlier Administrations, including a Labour Government. I have noted what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. David Crouch: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he said this afternoon that the question of red or yellow telephone boxes is a matter for British Telecom and that the question of closures in the coal industry is a matter for the National Coal Board? Will he assure me that the House will have a say in matters concerning nationalised industries? Their activities are determined by what the House of Commons thinks.

Mr. Pym: I note what my hon. Friend says. These matters are debated from time to time, and I have noted the particular interest that has been expressed today.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: Is the Minister aware that the National Insurance Advisory Committee's report on disabled housewives' non-contributory benefits has now been before the DHSS for a considerable time? Will he give a firm undertaking to the House that we shall debate any changes in those benefits before decisions are made outside?

Mr. Pym: I cannot give that undertaking, but I shall discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Mr. Harry Ewing: May I press the Leader of the House once again on the need for a debate on the proposed closure of Callendar Park and Hamilton colleges of education? Is he aware that for the past six or seven months we have consistently asked questions, the Opposition have given up their time in the Scottish Grand Committee, the Government were defeated in the Scottish Grand Committee, and the Minister is now threatening to close these colleges without further consultation with the governors? As a good parliamentarian, does not the Leader of the House think that it is the Government's responsibility to test the matter on the Floor of the House—or does he think that we should write to the Prime Minister and request a meeting about these colleges? Is he aware that we could relieve her of that burden by having a debate on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Pym: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's strength of feeling on this matter, because he has raised it in two or three successive weeks. However, with regret, I have nothing to add to the reply that I gave last week.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: Is the Leader of the House aware that the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) about the mining industry, with his request for a debate about the proposed closure of a number of pits, is a matter for the House, because at least £800 million of public money is invested in the British mining industry? In view of that, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his reply and give the House an opportunity to debate any proposals that the National Coal Board may make on the closure of pits?

Mr. Pym: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's comments. It would be possible to debate this matter in Supply time as well as in Government time. It would obviously be a suitable subject to be debated on a Supply day, although I am not necessarily suggesting that. I note the hon. Gentleman's representation.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are seven hon. Members who wish to speak. If questions are brief I can call all of them, but I do not propose to go much beyond 4 o'clock before we move on to the statement.

Mr. Tom McNally: Will the Leader of the House pledge an early debate on the unanimous report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, which seeks to put backbone into the Government's policy on import penetration? Is he aware that Monday would be a good day, because that is the day on which textile workers will lobby the House on that matter?

Mr. Pym: I do not think that I can alter the business for next Monday, but I note the hon. Gentleman's request.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Reverting to the question by my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs), may I ask what is the difference between the coal mining industry and butter within the Common Market, in that we can have butter mountains within the EEC but we cannot have coal mountains? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that coal is just as important a commodity as butter?

Mr. Pym: The stock of coal is something close to a mountain, and at present it is another anxiety within the industry.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: May I ask the Leader of the House to consider urgently a debate on regional policy, which is a priority for Labour Members? Is he aware that whereas his hon. Friends may be obsessed with the colour of telephone boxes and the size of the Official Report, we are concerned that in 20 months of this Government conditions in the regions have deteriorated to such an extent that we need a reassessment of regional policy, especially as it affects areas such as Yorkshire and Humberside?

Mr. Pym: Again, that is a suitable subject for a Supply day, when the hon. Gentleman could put forward his proposals. It could also be debated in Government time, but the hon. Gentleman knows that the number of days are limited, and we have to fit in Government business.

Mr. Stanley Newens: Will the Leader of the House take note that Labour Members as well as Conservative Members think that it is necessary to find time at the earliest possible opportunity for a debate on foreign affairs? Is he aware that in view of the policies of the new American Administration on Central America, Nicaragua, El Salvador, the problems of Cyprus, and so on, there is an enormous case for giving the House an opportunity to debate those issues?

Mr. Pym: I note the hon. Gentleman's remarks and I hope that before very long we shall be able to find an opportunity for such a debate. The number of foreign affair subjects raised indicates the interest of the House and the extent of the debate that might take place. I shall look for an opportunity as soon as possible.

Mr. Frank Hooley: Since the Prime Minister has often declared support for open government, may I ask the Leader of the House when the Government will bring forward their Freedom of Information Bill? Is he aware that if they require help in drafting such a Bill I shall be ready to assist?

Mr. Pym: That is a matter that we might be prepared to consider, but we have no plans to bring forward such a Bill at the moment.

Mr. George Robertson: Has the right hon. Gentleman read early-day motion 11, which gives the testimony of some of his hon. Friends to the value of a 10-college system of teacher training in Scotland?
[That this House recalls the assurances and pledges given three years ago to the colleges of education in Scotland by Conservative hon. Members, and calls upon the same hon. Members now in Government to re-read their own and their colleagues' speeches, and in particular the following, and to do now what they promised so confidently and pursuasively then:
"I think sometimes it's better not to merge or to destroy colleges, but to say all right we'll keep them all going because the more widely they are distributed, the more chance people who live near them have to go and train at them and still live at home."—The Prime Minister, 4 June 1977, in a Party Political Broadcast.
"We have come to the stage where we have enough teachers and all the Government can do is to cut matters back to keep things as they are. It is truly disastrous and I hope they will think again about it."—right hon. Member for Ayr Burghs, 17 February 1977.
"It follows that we do not accept that the proper reaction to lower population projection and the need to cut public expenditure is for the Secretary of State to wield a butcher's axe on the colleges of education.
"… We can only conclude that Ministers have chosen to chop smaller colleges purely for financial reasons and without proper consideration of the educational consequences of their action."—hon. Member for Edinburgh, North, 17 February 1977.
"It is not correct for the Government to argue that the closure of colleges is the proper or appropriate response to this difficulty."—hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands, 17 February 1977.
"If the Secretary of State wishes to convince the Scots that some harsh reforms are necessary, the costings must be made and must be made public. It is no use making decisions before making costings, because if the decisions are wrong they cannot be put right later. The costings and the feasibility study must be done first."—hon. Member for Edinburgh, West, 15 March 1977.
"The major failure of this Government has been their refusal to give any indication of the financial implications … We are entitled to know what the costs of the proposed closures are."—hon. Member for Dumfries, 5 April 1977.
"It is simply a cold, savage statistical exercise in butchery to reduce the number of colleges in Scotland from 10 to six and make substantial cuts in the number of college lecturers."—17 February 1977.
"The Opposition doubt whether it will be a real benefit to Scottish education to concentrate teacher training essentially in big colleges in the cities. I think


that there is ample evidence that the alternative proposal of reducing the number of students at the major colleges and keeping going those with special and unique geographical contributions to make would probably be better."—17 February 1977.]
If the right hon. Gentleman continues to tell the House that it cannot have a debate in Government time, will he tell the House and the people of Scotland why what was good enough in 1977, when his hon. Friends were in Opposition, is not good enough now that they are in power?

Mr. Pym: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has made the position clear to the House.

Mr. John Maxton: In the light of his disappointing answers to my hon. Friends the Members for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing), will the Leader of the House at least ensure that there is a debate on Scottish affairs in general, especially in view of the gross incompetence that the Secretary of State has shown in handling the closure of the colleges, the way in which it appears that he has caved in so readily on the closure of Linwood, and the enormous economic problems that face the whole of Scotland?

Mr. Pym: I cannot respond to that, but I note that there is business relating to education in Scotland on the Order Paper today—business that is not totally unrelated to the issues that have been raised with me. At present I have no plans for a Scottish day. Not long ago we had a Welsh day. This Government have been more generous in providing time for debates of that sort than were the previous Government. We do our best.

European Community (Fisheries Ministers' Meeting)

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the Council of Fisheries Ministers in Brussels on 9 to 11 February.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Minister of State in my Department and I represented the United Kingdom at the meeting of the Council of Fisheries Ministers which lasted from 9 to 11 February. In spite of intensive and sustained negotiations, the Council failed to reach agreement on a revised common fisheries policy. Discussions will be resumed on 9–10 March.
In the course of the three days, my right hon. Friend, my hon. Friend and I were able to have discussions with representatives of the industry on the problems which they are currently experiencing. The Government have already announced their decision to bring forward the review of the fishing industry's financial position. The Government have now fixed a meeting with the industry for next Tuesday, 17 February.
The object of the meeting will be to receive from the industry an analysis of its current financial position and to listen to any constructive suggestions it wishes to make. The analysis and the suggestions will then be urgently considered by the Government.
We also discussed the adverse effects of cheap fish imports, and it has been agreed that a team of industry

representatives and Government officials will immediately examine all allegations of illegal and unfair imports of fish.
During the Council meeting, we brought to the attention of the Commission the fact that the system operating to prevent cheap imports from entering our market from third countries was not working effectively. We have obtained a firm undertaking from the Commissioner that he will urgently examine the problem in order to make the system more effective.

Mr. Roy Mason: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement. Is he aware that he will continue to get our backing as long as he stands firm within the Council of Ministers for the British fisheries proposals, as agreed by all the industry and by this House of Parliament?
It would appear that some progress is being made, especially on conservation, on inspection and on total allowable catches, but is the Minister aware that, in spite of French intransigence, he must still stand firm on two of the cardinal points—the 12-mile exclusive belt and our dominant preference up to 50 miles? During the course of the past three days he has resisted the German agreement with the Canadians, the Danes on the Faroes, and the French on fishing up to our beaches. He is right to hold up these agreements until we have managed to obtain a satisfactory package.
Will the Minister say what proposals were put forward by the EEC on financial aid to the industry—I understand that these were discussed—and also how the United Kingdom might be assisted?
Meantime, at home, apart from the committee of inquiry by the industry and Government to establish the fiddles in cheap fish imports, what real action has the Minister in mind now to stop cheap fish imports? He has not given an indication to the House as to how long it will take the Commissioner to examine this matter. What, therefore, has he in mind about doing something positive now?
Will all sections of the industry be represented on the committee of inquiry? There are differences of view being expressed by those in the deep-sea fleet and the inshore fishermen.
Finally, in view of the further delay in regard to the common fisheries policy, may we expect a statement next week on financial aid to the industry?

Mr. Walker: One of the strengths in the negotiations is the basic unity between the Government, the industry and the House of Commons as a whole. Therefore, I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks.
At every stage and every step and in every counter proposal in Brussels, we have the representatives of the industry in to discuss them, and we agree our tactical position and our major objective. That policy will continue until we reach a final agreement.
With regard to the Canadian agreements and the Faroes, the right hon. Gentleman will understand that I regretted that the decision that we had to make on the Canadian agreement has had an adverse effect on the German fleet, which was not my objective. But the whole Community must understand that there is no way in which Britain can accept an agreement which will result in an increase of cheap imports into our markets in return for


fishing facilities for another European country until we receive an overall agreement satisfactory to Britain. That remains the firm position of the British Government.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about aid to the industry and whether a statement will be made next week. I shall be having a meeting with the industry on Tuesday next. The representatives of the industry will then analyse what they consider to be the financial position and make their suggestions. Until I have that meeting on Tuesday afternoon I shall not know the nature of the suggestion. I shall then have to consider my proposals, together with my Government colleagues, and I shall then be able to make a statement. I consider the matter to be urgent. Although I cannot promise to make a statement next week, following next Tuesday's meeting urgent decisions will be taken in Whitehall, and an early statement will be made to the House of Commons.
With regard to imports, in the month of January my Department analysed 22 reports of imports that we considered should be looked at urgently by the Commission. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, due to the death of Mr. Gundelach we have a new Commissioner who has taken charge of the portfolio. I discussed these cases with him this week and he has personally undertaken to look into them urgently.

Mr. Peter Mills: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the very firm stand that he has made, which will be particularly welcome in the South-West of England. Will he agree that, bearing in mind his very firm stand, the fishermen should now go back to sea?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the nonsense and the difficulties that he is having with the French continue we may have to take unilateral action in order to help our fishermen and our consumers?

Mr. Walker: I have been with the leaders of the industry for the last three days in Brussels. They made it clear that the action that was being taken by the fishermen was not intended to mean that the British Government should come to a speedy settlement, irrespective of the terms. Indeed, they very much supported our negotiating position. I am glad to have received this morning from ports throughout the United Kingdom reports that our fishermen are going back to sea.
I understand from the leaders with whom I have been in Brussels that they appreciate the financial aid to the industry, which is a form of unilateral action. There was no pressure on the Government for us to take earlier action, having promised to review the matter at the end of March, and it is appreciated by them that the Government on their own initiative decided to review the financial position ahead of the time that was agreed for that review. That action was appreciated, and they have agreed on the procedure that we are following with regard to imports.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Now that the Minister has encountered, and rightly resisted, intransigence on fundamentals which have not previously been brought into the issue, will he take the opportunity to review the position on catch quotas and zones, where we have made compromises which were not really satisfactory from the point of view of the industry? If a matter is to be opened up by other parties, it ought to be opened up by us as well.

Mr. Walker: May I say to the right hon. Gentleman—in terms which I know affect his constituents—that there was a discussion in the course of the three days about the possible opening up of total allowable catches for herring in the North Sea, and we made clear that if there were to be such a consideration the TACs and the Mourne fishery should be considered at the same time.

Sir Walter Clegg: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the great fight that he is putting up. Will he say whether there was any discussion at the meeting of an increase in EEC reference prices, which would undoubtedly help? Also, was anything said about exploratory or training voyages?

Mr. Walker: No, Sir. I have said "No", but in terms of discussing the marketing arrangements and in our talks with the Commission and with other Ministers we continued to put our view that the withdrawal prices, in spite of the increase that we have recently obtained, have little relationship to the economic cost of fishing, so we continued to press that point.
There was a general discussion on the future nature of a structures package, and on this question a number of nations put differing views as to the value of exploratory voyages. As my hon. Friend knows from the national aid programme that we announced last year, in terms of our own industry, we considered that these have a role to play.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Did any country other than France at the recent meeting seek to claim access within our 12-mile limit? Will the Secretary of State resist any attempt to cut into that limit? Does he recall Minister after Minister saying that the question of imports would be looked into with great urgency? How can we have any confidence that these imports will be stopped or abated?

Mr. Walker: One can have no confidence at all, judging by the performance of previous Ministers. As my predecessor knows, it is difficult to judge whether an import is dumped where auction markets prevail. We can make effective investigations into the allegations of illegal practices and ensure that action is taken.
Varying views about the historic rights were expressed in the talks about the 12-mile limit by a number of member countries. The major discussions about access took place on the principle of the importance of certain countries having a preferential area outside the 12-mile zone. The talks came to an end because it was impossible to find an acceptable proposal in that regard.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: As the House can see, a large number of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen are seeking to ask questions. If right hon. and hon. Members will be as brief as possible in their questions and replies, I hope to call everyone, at least those with a constituency interest.

Mr. Michael Shaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware how much we appreciate the fact that he and his colleagues are seeking a fair and enforceable fisheries agreement and, in reaching that agreement how necessary it is to stick to the 12-mile exclusive limit and to bear in mind our experience that any exceptions to the 12-mile limit have been disastrous for the fishing industry, particularly on the Yorkshire coast?

Mr. Walker: The advantage of having at these negotiations the leaders of the industry in my room in Brussels discussing the detail is that it is possible to discuss details with the fishermen who know the problems of the locality and who know what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. They know that we will not deliver a fishing agreement that is unacceptable to the British industry.

Mr. James Johnson: May I congratulate the Minister on taking a firm stand against his Gaullist opponents in the Fisheries Council? We welcome his statement about the need for an inquiry into the dumping of fish in this country. In that connection, is he aware that a boat has just left Hull on its way to Arctic waters off the coast of Norway? It is on a hiding to nothing; it is a sheer gamble. It can catch cod at £70 a tonne, but cannot sell cod at above £60 a tonne when it returns. Unless the Minister can stop these cheap imports—this dumping—the industry will be in a most unholy mess.

Mr. Walker: I recognise the frustration of any fishermen who go to sea for a couple of days, come back with a good catch and then find that they have lost money and earned nothing. In fact, cod is one of the prime reasons why I resisted the Canadian agreement, because it would have made cod prices in this country even higher than they are at present. The hon. Gentleman knows that the fishing industry was relieved when, at the last Council meeting, we were able to reach agreement on the Norwegian waters, as a result of which ships such as the one that he mentioned are able to go there. I trust that the market will firm up in time for the trip to be a success.

Mr. Patrick Wall: I congratulate my right hon. Friend particularly on his stand on the 12-mile limit. It appears that there will be no settlement in that regard until after the French presidential election. I put two questions to my right hon. Friend. The first concerns imports. I know how difficult it is to make decisions about dumping, but if the heat is to be taken out of the situation, can something be done about imports immediately, and financial aid can be given to the industry as soon as possible? Can my right hon. Friend give us more assurance that there will be action, not talk, on these two issues at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend mentioned the difficulties connected with imports. Let me give the example of Lowestoft, where much plaice is caught and where, clearly, the price of imported fish has an effect. If Dutch vessels, whose primary interest is sole, catch plaice as a by-catch, they get their reward on the sole catch and are not too concerned about the price that they obtain for plaice. That is a factor that adversely affects ports such as Lowestoft, and it is a factor that is difficult to control. All that I can say is that I have told the industry that we shall meet it next Tuesday to discuss the financial arrangements, and we shall discuss any creative arrangements that it wishes to make.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Does the Minister agree that what will do most to get the Grimsby fishermen back to sea is emergency action on imports? We welcome the inquiry that the right hon. Gentleman has initiated, though the facts are reasonably well known because it is a repetition of last year's crisis. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the industry wants action now, particularly on cheap imports from the EEC?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the breakdown in negotiations gives him the chance not only to strengthen our negotiating position—we have already given too much away—but to fulfil the commitment in the Conservative Party manifesto that in the absence of an agreement the Government will not hesitate to take the necessary measures on their own? When will the right hon Gentlman take those measures?

Mr. Walker: I am somewhat surprised by what the hon. Member says. It was most encouraging that the Grimsby fishermen were the first to go back. At least they are encouraged by the action that we took. The Grimsby fishermen know that already this year the Government have given double the aid of any of their predecessors in any one year. He knows, too, that we have tackled immediately any problem that they have raised with us.

Mr. Iain Sproat: May I add to the warm welcome that my right hon. Friend has already received for his strong defence of the interests of British fishermen? I welcome also the setting up of the committee to look into allegations of the dumping of cheap foreign fish. Will my right hon. Friend tell us more about the composition of the committee from the point of view of the fishing industry, and also give us details of the 22 cases of irregular imports from third countries? Which countries were they?

Mr. Walker: Obviously I do not have the details of the 22 cases to hand, but a substantial number of them came from North American countries. We have given the details to the Commission.
On the composition of the committee, in the small negotiating group that acts in an advisory capacity to me in Brussels, I consult the industry to try to arrange representation so that all sectors of the industry are satisfied that they have a voice. I shall do the same in the case of this committee.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Will the Minister make clear that whatever the outcome of the Commission's investigation of the 22 cases of alleged irregular imports, the practicalities of compensating the industry for the losses that it has incurred are almost impossible? The drying up of markets over a long period has led to grave financial losses, and it is not practical to compensate for that. Following the investigations, what steps does the right hon. Gentleman hope will be taken to prevent a recurrence? That is what is worrying the industry.

Mr. Walker: We have referred to the Commission our view that the concept of having a reference price by which third country imports cannot come into the Community—a basic principle accepted by the Community—has not operated properly. I am grateful to the new Commissioner for taking this matter seriously and for undertaking personally to look into it. I hope that he will come forward with proposals to tighten up the position. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the damage done by cheaper imports during the past year. That is why we have doubled already the amount of aid given to the industry previously.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: Will my right hon. Friend give more details about the representation of the inshore fishermen on the committee, bearing in mind that the variations of grounds around our shores are


substantial? Secondly, may I say how much I admire the way that my right hon. Friend has combated the audacity of the French? We do not want them wrecking our grounds legally when they have already wrecked their own.

Mr. Walker: I hope that the composition of the committee will be such that the industry will have confidence in it. I think my hon. Friend will agree that if we have a committee in which every port, locality and district are represented it will not be effective in taking the type of action that is necessary. Therefore, I want a small, compact committee of leaders of the fishing industry which is respected by the industry as a whole.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Does the Minister feel that throughout the talks the French showed a Community spirit?

Mr. Walker: A French Deputy could perhaps ask the French Minister the same question about the British. There is a dialogue between countries on a number of questions. Naturally, countries pursue their national interests. An examination of the history of the Community reveals that, as a result, decisions are made to the benefit of Europe as a whole.

Mr. David Mudd (Falmouth and Cambourne): My right hon. Friend will get, but hardly expect, extra congratulations on the positive steps that he has taken. Will he bear in mind that the West Country mackerel industry, particularly that of Cornwall, has borne the brunt of the absence of a CFP? Can he assure us that interim steps will be taken so that Cornish mackerel are left for Cornish fishermen to catch when sanity prevails in the EEC?

Mr. Walker: Yes. My hon. Friend knows the interest that my Department and, in particular, the Minister of State have taken in the detailed problems of the Cornish mackerel fisheries.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why is it necessary for the Minister to take part in the exercise of setting up a quango-ACAS-type body when there is plenty of evidence on television film and in other forms in the media to prove that fiddling and dumping take place on a massive scale, to the detriment of this country? Is it not more true to say that this delaying tactic, this buying of time, has more to do with the attempted re-election of Giscard d'Estaing than with saving the jobs of British fishermen?

Mr. Walker: In view of the hon. Gentleman's detailed knowledge of the fishing industry, I think that he will know that his fishing constituents require more than anything else a system of control which does not exist because we do not have a common fisheries policy.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If hon. Members will co-operate and be as brief as they can, I shall call those who have been rising.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Minister, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of State on the tremendous stand that they made. Hon. Members might not realise that they worked through the night until 4 o'clock this morning to try to agree a common fisheries policy.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the main reason behind the fishermen's dispute was not necessarily the common fisheries policy but the collapse of prices at the quayside due to the high import of fish, which last year amounted to 234,000 tonnes and was worth £18 million? Will my right hon. Friend therefore take urgent steps with the new committee to control imports of fish that is not required for the processing factories?

Mr. Walker: The processing factories are of great importance to our fishing industry and to the consumers. They are an important part of the market. All are agreed that there has been unfair competition and perhaps illegal practices. We have tried to set up the best instrument to discover such practices and to take action against them.

Mr. James Kilfedder: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the only way to save from further harm fishermen in Northern Ireland, and in areas in England, Scotland and Wales which border the Irish Sea, is to exclude all foreigners, particularly the French, from that area?

Mr. Walker: Over the years British fishermen have fished in many parts of the European seas. That has been to the benefit of our fishing industry. Northern Ireland has a particular problem because under The Hague agreements of 1976 the Irish Republic was granted double quotas. That has a great adverse effect on the fishermen of Northern Ireland. That is why I am intent on ensuring that an arrangement for Northern Ireland is made to compensate.

Sir Albert Costain: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the fishermen of South-East Kent have seen the French ruin their own fishing grounds and are particularly anxious that he should persevere with the 12-mile limit? Will he arrange for the committee to examine the price of imported fish and follow it to the shops to discover why fish is not cheaper there?

Mr. Walker: I originally appointed five people to advise on marketing in the food industry in general. Two of them are examining the question of the marketing offish in Britain. I look forward to their report with interest.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: In view of the importance of the fishing industry in Southend, may we have a clear assurance that no concession was or will be made on the principle of the 12-mile limit? In spite of the worrying speech by the German Foreign Minister, did my right hon. Friend receive an assurance from fellow members of the Council of Ministers that the lack of an agreement will not be used as a device to delay the payments due to Britain by 31 March?

Mr. Walker: As my hon. Friend knows from his great interest in European matters, some people suggested that the Community payments would not be made. I know that my hon. Friend rejoices that the payments have already been made under the budget agreement. No pressure of any description was put upon me by any member of the Community on that question.

Mr. Taylor: What about Southend?

Mr. Walker: The details of the agreement that is eventually made on access and quotas will have the support of the British fishing industry.

Mr. Peter Fraser: Whatever else has been said in the House in the last 24 hours, will the


Minister convey to the Secretary of State for Scotland the fact that the Scottish fishermen appreciate his commitment to their cause and his presence in Brussels? I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said about question of financial aid, which he is reviewing, but has he determined the volume and form of that aid? Does he accept that in the two other instances criticism was made of the form of aid?

Mr. Walker: Throughout yesterday we discussed the major access requirement for Scotland. I have no doubt that if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland had been absent from Brussels he would have een criticised by the Opposition. I took a leading part in the negotiations and I was grateful for the presence and activity of my right hon. Friend during the talks. No commitment and no decision of any description has been taken about the financial arrangements. Decisions will not be taken at next Tuesday's meeting. The fishing industry will give us its analysis of the position and its suggestions about how the Government can help.

Mr. Alex Pollock: May I extend my sympathies to the Minister at this anxious and frustrating time? Pending settlement, will he give serious consideration to the possibility of either a fuel subsidy or an interest relief grant?

Mr. Walker: I recognise that both those suggestions are of great importance industry will give its analysis of the financial position and make suggestions about their priorities. We shall then consider them urgently.

Mr. David Crouch: I hope that my right hon. Friend will not say to me, as he said to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), that I do not have a considerable knowledge of the fishing industry. Everybody is worried about the fishing industry. Is my right hon. Friend aware that from Whitstable we export by the millions to France oysters in the form of spat?

Mr. Walker: First, I certainly did not say that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has no knowledge of the fishing industry. On behalf of his constituents he has considerable knowledge and interest in that subject. That is the opposite to what my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) said. I am sorry if my hon. Friend thought that I was being sarcastic. I am delighted to hear of the enormous export trade in oysters to France. I hope that a few will remain in Britain.

Mr. Gavin Strang: Does the Secretary of State see any prospect of agreement on the common agricultural policy before the French presidential election? May we be assured that there will be no trade-off between the fishery negotiations and the negotiations that are shortly to start on the agricultural prices package?

Mr. Walker: On the last point, I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that on budget, agricultural and fishing matters we have never accepted the principle of linkage. It is not the intention of the Government to link any of those matters. The question about the prospect of agreement before the French election would be better put to the French Minister, not to me.

Paymaster General (Speech)

Mr. Harry Cowans: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House,

under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the statement by the Minister in charge of Government information made outside this House on 11 February.
It is disappointing that the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) is not in his seat. He and his office were informed that I intended to raise the matter.
The right hon. Gentleman's statement was made to the Putney Conservative Association. Had it remained within that august body, its contents might not have been of such considerable purport to the House. His speech has been referred to widely in the press and in the House today, but unfortunately only some of it has been talked about. Within the speech are wide implications of a change of Government policy and a change of direction, which are matters to be debated in the House.
I welcome the right hon. Member back into the real world because in part of the speech he said of trends that had occurred in the past two years that they were not unexpected, although their sharpness and suddenness came as a surprise. Labout Members have been telling the Government about the sharpness—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make the speech that he would make if I were to grant the application. All that he needs to do is to persuade me of the urgency, importance and specific nature of what is troubling him.

Mr. Cowans: I apologise for transgressing, Mr. Speaker. I shall leave that part of the speech and carry on with another part and hope that I shall not transgress again. It is difficult to make my point without quoting the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I shall change my tack in quoting from the speech. The part that makes my point is:
Commonsense tells us that changed circumstances make adjustments necessary in tactics and time.
That is policy and that is a matter which interests the House. If tactics are to be changed—and we have been telling the right hon. Gentleman for a long time that his tactics are wrong—that matter should be debated on the floor of the House. The right hon. Member's statement goes further:
We could neither press ahead regardless with our planned schedule nor avoid some needed measures to deal with some of the distressing effects
of the factors that he had referred to.
Labour Members have been informing the right hon. Member daily of the distressing effects. He has talked about "some measures". Those measures are important to the House and should be brought before the House. Will he at last do something about unemployment? Is that one of the measures? Is his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry suddenly to change his mind and appoint a northern development agency? Is that one of the measures? The answer is that we do not know. That is why the matter should be debated in the House, to prove that the right hon. Gentleman has been listening to what we have been telling him—which will help to get the country back to where it was before the Conservative Government came into office.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. (rowans) gave me notice this morning before 12 o'clock that he would seek to make an application under Standing Order No. 9.
The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purposes of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the statement by the Minister in charge of Government information made outside this House on 11 February.
I listened, as the House did, with interest to what the hon. Gentleman said in making his application. The House knows that it has told me to give no reasons for my decision. I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

BILL PRESENTED

PETROLEUM AND CONTINENTAL SHELF

Mr. Secretary Howell, supported by Mr. Secretary Whitelaw, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Sir Keith Joseph, Mr. Secretary Younger, Mr. Hamish Gray, Mr. Norman Lamont and Mr. John Moore presented a Bill to make further provision with respect to the British National Oil Corporation; to abolish the National Oil Account; to make further provision about licences to search for and get petroleum; to provide for safety zones around certain installations; to make provision as to the application of the law in areas of the continental shelf designated under the Continental Shelf Act 1964 and certain areas adjacent thereto; to extend the application of the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act 1971 and the Offshore Petroleum Development (Scotland) Act 1975; to amend the Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Act 1968, the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Act 1975 and the Participation Agreements Act 1978; and for connected purposes; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 62.]

Orders of the Day — Education (Scotland) (No. 2) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: I have not selected the reasoned amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux).

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill was laid before the House last year as the Education (Scotland) (No. 2) Bill. As we have passed the beginning of a new calendar year, the "No. 2" part of the title falls to be removed The first Scottish education Bill of 1980 was, of course, what is now the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 which was a consolidation measure with minor changes of the education provisions in more than 20 statutes. This Bill is a very different matter. It is not too much to describe the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) did on its publication, as the biggest initiative in Scottish education legislation for many years, probably the biggest since the Education (Scotland) Act 1945.
It might be helpful if I mentioned at this point—because it explains what may strike some as an unusual layout of the Bill—that in order not to lose too quickly the advantages of the 1980 consolidation the Bill has been largely drafted in the form of provisions to be inserted in the 1980 Act either as new provisions or as substitutions. That will enable the 1980 Act to be produced in due course incorporating the Bill's provisions when enacted—the whole then being in an easily readable and comprehensible form to the benefit of those who will use it.
The main subject of the Bill—the provisions relating to admissions to school—fulfils an undertaking given in our election manifesto, as does the assisted places scheme. Another group of provisions—relating to special educational needs—implement the recommendations of the Warnock committee so far as they relate to the statutory framework. The Bill also relaxes some controls administered by the Scottish Education Department, and contains provisions relating to the Scottish Certificate of Education Examination Board, the negotiations of teachers' pay and conditions of service, and the responsibility for educational endowments.
The Bill is the product of a great deal of work which has been going on in the Scottish Education Department over the past year or so and before I turn to its provisions I pause briefly to put its subject matter in context against the background of the whole scope and needs of the Scottish educational system at present. That is essential to any proper understanding of the Bill, because suggestions have been made frequently recently both that it is "irrelevant" to the present needs of Scottish education and that important issues that ought to have been dealt with in it have been ignored.
For example, I should like to explain briefly why the Bill does not deal with the special needs of the 16 to 18-year-olds which, as hon. Members will recall, were the subject of a consultative paper, "16–18s in Scotland: The


First 2 Years of Post-Compulsory Education". In that area our principal aim, of course, must be to improve the preparation of young people for work and, to that end, to strengthen existing links between education and training. The Government's proposals for extending the existing programme of vocational preparation schemes have already been announced. We are also considering, in the light of the responses to the consultative paper, whether there is any action to be taken to integrate more effectively the work of schools and further education colleges in Scotland. No need for legislation, however, has so far been identified, as the work can and will proceed without any direct reference in the Bill.
In primary education, the recently published HMI report on teaching and learning in primary 4 and primary 7 has been recognised as an important landmark. As the first major report on such matters since the publication of the primary memorandum in 1965, it points the way ahead for that vital sector. The ground work laid down is being furthered in a number of ways. I know that it has been felt by some teachers that primary education has been left unrecognised and neglected in comparison with the much-publicised developments in secondary education and I am glad to be able to put on record the vital importance which we attach to the primary schools. I look forward to steady development along the lines suggested in the report.
Turning to secondary schools, the Government have accepted the main recommendations of the Munn and Dunning reports in principle and work is progressing satisfactorily on the development programme announced last March in response to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay). A progress report has now been published. Here again, however, no legislation is called for.

Mr. John Maxton: When talking about the Munn and Dunning reports, will the Secretary of State give some indication of what expenditure for in-service training for teachers he is prepared to allow, as that was a major factor in both reports?

Mr. Younger: That is an important point. We have made adequate recognition of it in our calculations for the rate support grant. That is the proper way to do it and I am sure that the education authorities will make the best possible use of the resources.
There are many other initiatives that I could mention if this were the time to do so. For example, the Education for the Industrial Society project, with its emphasis on ways in which school courses generally might be adapted to give pupils a better preparation for the world of work, is making good progress and will be completed in spring 1982. But I hope that those few examples will leave the House in no doubt that the fact that existing statute does not require amendment in relation to any particular major initiatives in no way implies that they are being undervalued or neglected.
If I were asked to nominate the theme most recurrent in the Bill, it would be in the one word "freedom". The Government's purposes in the Bill, by contrast with the policies of some Labour Members, who seem apt to subordinate freedom to their preference for Government intervention and control, are greatly concerned with freedom—freedom for local authorities to act on their own initiatives where that is appropriate, and after due consultation with parents, but, above all, greater freedom

for parents to choose the school and the type of education that they consider best for their children. For too long the attitude has prevailed in some quarters that parents must just accept without question whatever education authorities or teachers think fit to offer them. I remind the House that it is on the parent that the statutory responsibility rests for seeing that his child receives
efficient education … suitable to his age, ability and aptitude".
Is it not time that we acted in accordance with the spirit of that provision and gave parents a greater say in how their children are to be educated?
The first part of the Bill—clauses 1 and 2—expresses that theme. As hon. Members will be aware, last March my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North invited a wide range of bodies to comment on proposals outlined in our consultative document "Admission to School—A Charter for Parents"—proposals designed to give parents a greater say on the choice of school. Clause 1 follows that up by providing a statutory framework within which parents can express their choice. Some authorities in Scotland already adopt a flexible and sympathetic attitude towards parental choice and try to accede to parental wishes wherever they can. But that is not, alas, the universal practice. There are areas where authorities are willing to meet a parent's request for a particular school only in the most exceptional circumstances. At a time of falling rolls, when there is often plenty of room in the school of the parent's choice, I do not think there is any justification for such an approach. Clause 1 therefore gives education authorities a duty to comply with parental requests, unless one or more of the specified grounds for refusal apply.
Clearly there will still be cases where parental requests will be refused, and indeed some refusals will be quite justifiable. We have made it plain on many occasions that parental choice cannot operate at any price. To safeguard parents, however, if they are not satisfied by the education authority's refusal of a request, clause 1 and schedule 1 provide for a system of independent appeal committees to examine each case referred to them. I should make it clear that I do not expect many cases to go to appeal committees.
The commonest cause for the complaints that I receive from parents is that their request has been turned down, although they believe that there is room for their child in the chosen school. The Bill will end that cause of complaint and, if the new provisions are seen to be operated fairly, there should be few parents who believe that they have cause to appeal, even if they have been unsuccessful in their request because the school they want is oversubscribed. Nevertheless, I accept that there will be some parents who will wish to go to the appeal committees, and thereafter a few who will remain dissatisfied even after an appeal committee has heard their case. To cater for such parents clause 1 also makes provision for a further level of appeal to the sheriff.
In our consultative paper last March, we urged authorities to act in accordance with the spirit of our proposals and to accept an obligation to meet parents' wishes if that can be done within the existing accommodation and staffing resources in the school of choice. I take the opportunity to repeat that request in relation to the arrangements which they are now beginning to make for the admission of children to primary schools or transfer to secondary schools next August. No one, I am


sure, would wish to contemplate the disruption which will be caused if a large number of parents are left feeling that their requests have been turned down unreasonably, and exercise their right to repeat their request and to appeal if it is refused, when this part of the Bill comes into operation at some point during the 1981–82 school session.
Parents will need information about schools and about the education authority's admission arrangements. Clause 1 therefore provides that education authorities will be required to make prescribed information available and to tell parents, when their child is allocated to a particular school, of their right to request an alternative school. Clause 2 provides that authorities will not have to incur additional expenditure in respect of board, lodgings and transport when they have offered a place with suitable arrangements for transport and so on, but the parent has asked for a place in a different school. Authorities will be empowered to provide assistance with transport to the school of the parent's choice, but that will be entirely within their discretion.
I turn now to the provisions in the Bill that deal with special educational needs. These provisions implement the basic changes in attitude to the education of handicapped children and young people recommended by the Warnock committee. The central message of the Warnock report—and it is especially apt in this International Year of Disabled People—is that children are individuals and should be seen as such. The educational system should look positively at the child's capacity and his educational needs: the common aim for all must be the achievement of the full potential of each child. As a foundation for this approach clause 3 introduces a broad and flexible concept of special educational needs in terms which make it clear that we are concerned with all children who need a fair amount of extra help with their schooling. The new definition covers not only the small number of children who, under the existing law, would be ascertained within rigid categories of handicap as requiring special education but many more children besides—the Warnock committee itself thought that up to one in five would evince some form of special educational need at some time during their school career.

Mr. Jim Craigen: In this International Year of Disabled People, what extra provision will the Scottish Office make available? I have two schools under threat of closure and it seems to me that extra provision will be required if local authorities are to make this new legislation work.

Mr. Younger: I should be very glad to look into the particular instances that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. [Interruption.] I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) will look into it. I shall be very grateful if he does. Whether he is trying to make his own speech from a sitting position I do not know. We are looking forward tremendously to hearing from him later on. Perhaps he could leave us to whet our appetites a little for when he gets called later on, if he does. If the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) has worries about this matter I should be very glad to look into the point.
As far as resources are concerned, if the hon. Gentleman is referring to education and the needs of the disabled, the rate support grant settlement for social work

generally—which includes work for the disabled—actually shows a real increase of approximately 1 per cent. There is, therefore, absolutely no excuse whatever for any local authority cutting back on essential needs for the disabled. Indeed, it ought to be able marginally to increase them. As the hon. Gentleman, I am sure, will approve of that, I think that it is a pan answer to his question.
Clause 4 makes new provision directly concerned with children and young people whose needs are both marked and continuing—generally those for whom special education has been found necessary in the past. The clause has two main effects. First, it provides for the assessment of children and young persons with the object of establishing whether their special needs are, in the words of the Bill, "pronounced, specific or complex". Where they are, the education authority has a duty to keep a special individual record which sets out the character and severity of the pupil's handicaps, lists his educational needs and the measures the authority proposes to take, and, where appropriate, names the school it proposes. Secondly, the parents of recorded children are given opportunities to express their views on the needs of the child and the same right to express their wishes with regard to a choice of school as clause 1 gives to other parents.
Hon. Members may recall that in the White Paper "Special Educational Needs in Scotland" published last summer I canvassed the possibility that the appeal committee and the sheriff should hear appeals against the record as well as choice of school issues. I received strong representations, however, to the effect that the consideration of the sensitive issues raised by questions of impaired ability should remain with my own professional advisers. Clause 4, therefore, now distinguishes carefully between appeals against the decision to record a child or against the description in the record—these will have to be referred to the Secretary of State—and appeals against the refusal of the parent's choice of school, which will be dealt with by the appeal committee in the ordinary way. I think we now have in the Bill a system which, without being too complicated in operation, will ensure that the separate issues are each handled in the proper way.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Clauses 3 and 4 impose severe burdens on the education authority. If I recall them correctly, the provisions envisaged in Warnock would require the education authorities, if they are to carry out their duties, to have recourse to such sophisticated teaching elements as physiotherapists and speech therapists and there is no provision, as I understand it, in this Bill for doing that. Indeed, there is a reduction in these facilities.

Mr. Younger: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern. He is quite right, of course, in saying that one cannot improve facilities for the education of disabled children without some money. Of course, this measure is only just having its Second Reading today and we hope it will be approved by the House. It is our intention, if it is approved, that provision will be made in the rate support grant settlements in the normal way so that the provision that local authorities are likely to be able to make use of is allowed for. I think that that is the fairest way to approach it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with that.
The next part of the Bill—clause 5 and schedule 4—concerns the assisted places scheme. Labour Members


have lost no opportunity of making it clear in recent months that this is the part of the Bill to which they are most strongly opposed. Indeed, it seems to be the only part of the Bill that they have taken on board at all. I believe, however, that their opposition, though no doubt sincere, is compounded of prejudice and a great deal of misunderstanding. I hope I can dispel at least some of the misunderstanding, although it may be beyond me to dispel all the prejudice.

Mr. David Steel: In dispelling these misunderstandings, will the right hon. Gentleman take great care to tell us, in describing the detail of the scheme proposed in clause 5, what educational bodies in Scotland approve of the scheme?

Mr. Younger: If the right hon. Gentleman would like some detail on that, I will ask my hon. Friend to mention it in replying. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would also like a list—[Interruption.]

Mr. Canavan: The name of one will do.

Mr. Younger: The right hon. Gentleman may like a list of those who are gladly taking advantage of the scheme as well. I think that perhaps the most eloquent testimony that the scheme is entirely voluntary is to be found in the people taking part in it. I am not even despairing of dispelling some of the prejudice of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan). I am sure he will respond vocally if I succeed.
Perhaps I could describe briefly what the scheme is. [Interruption.] Whether the right hon. Member for Craigton is still halfway through his speech I am not sure, but he is doing a very good job on it. Perhaps he has to prepare his speeches while he is sitting on the Front Bench. I always feel a little deprived because I rarely get the privilege of hearing the excellent speeches the right hon. Gentleman makes from the Front Bench from a sedentary position. No doubt they are so much better than the ones he makes standing up. I shall just have to make do with those.
The proposal in Clause 5 is that the existing block grant to the grant-aided secondary schools will be phased out and the resources thus released put at the disposal of suitable fee-paying secondary schools to enable them to remit the fees of pupils in accord with a prescribed parental income scale. At income levels up to about £90 a week remission will be total. Above that level an increasing parental contribution will be required and remission will cease altogether at the level of about £180 a week. The pupils to be admitted to assisted places will be chosen by the schools themselves, subject only to a requirement that they must be capable of benefiting from the education provided. In addition, some resources will be provided also to cover certain specified incidental expenses. This latter power will be exercised only to the extent of ensuring that pupils enjoying fee remission will not be at a disadvantage in comparison with children in the public sector.
I ask hon. Members to consider what they would have been saying on this subject if we had decided not to have an assisted places scheme in Scotland but simply to go on with the grant-aided secondary schools on the basis we inherited. Of course, I know that in principle Opposition Members would like to see all fee-paying schools abolished. But would they really have preferred us to

preserve the status quo? I should have thought that Labour Members would recognise that the scheme is at least a step in the right direction. It will progressively convert the traditional indiscriminate subsidy, which helps only families who can already afford to pay substantial fees, into an income-linked subsidy. I simply cannot see how the Opposition can take the view that that step is undesirable in itself.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: The Secretary of State is very fond of telling us, as is his junior Minister, that the assisted places scheme will not cost one extra penny of public money, that it is just redistributing the grant aid that is already there. Will he come clean, stop misleading the House and tell us that since his Government came to power the increase in grant aid to fee-paying schools has been well over 200 per cent., and that there is nothing in the Bill to stop him or any future Secretary of State increasing the amount of public money that will be doled out through the assisted places scheme to these privileged fee-paying schools?

Mr. Younger: The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) is quite right. I am extremely fond of telling him things; it is a useful activity. I always enjoy hearing from him too. The answer is that it is true that we have managed to put right some of the damage the previous Government did to these schools by reducing the grant paid to them to a level which made it almost useless to those with low incomes who wished to exercise some choice in education. The hon. Gentleman must face the fact that his views on education, if implemented, would leave only two categories of people—those who were extremely well off and could afford some choice, and all the rest who could afford no choice whatever. He, as a good Socialist—as I understand he is—should be very pleased to think that some people with low incomes will be able to exercise some choice in the education of their children instead of the choice being confined to those who are very well off. But perhaps the hon. Gentleman is beginning to change his views. I look forward to his conversion, although I should view it with some apprehension if he were to cross the Floor of the House.
People used to talk about grant-aided schools as a bridge between the public sector and the private sector, meaning that they provided an alternative accessible to the lower income family. They sometimes still speak in that way. But the truth is that that bridge has long since collapsed. It existed in the days when fully economic school fees were much lower than they are now and when the subsidy to the grant-aided schools reduced those fees by more than half. There is no pretending that today's fees of, say, £1,000 reduced by the block grant to £800 are within the reach of lower income families. The assisted places scheme is fundamentally an effort to rebuild that bridge.
There is one other thing I must mention. I have taken note of the criticism levelled at the Government by Labour Members against the preparations that are being made for the scheme in advance of the Bill. This criticism is unjustified. It is perfectly normal for any Government to carry out preparatory work, and we have been at pains to keep Parliament fully informed of our preparations. I take this opportunity of mentioning a small change in the proposed parental income scale—the raising of the deduction allowed for a dependent relative to the figure of


£600. We also make it clear that the scheme remains subject to the enactment of the Bill. The House should know, however, that the Bill is not essential to the introduction of the assisted places scheme as I already have powers to introduce the scheme under existing legislation. I propose, therefore, to use my existing powers in sections 73 and 74 of the 1980 Act to make interim regulations which I hope to lay before the House shortly. This will not, of course, deprive the House of the opportunity of discussing the proposals fully, and the regulations will, indeed, help us to have a better informed discussion since they will provide background to the provision in the Bill.
I now pass on into what I hope will be calmer waters.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Does the Secretary of State agree that the Dundee high school jumped the gun and issued a pamphlet well in advance of the matter being debated in the Chamber? Is it not wholly incorrect to suggest that certain things might take place when the House has not had a chance to discuss those matters? This is to deny the House its right to discuss the matter. Even if the right hon. Gentleman does have powers, he should lay the matter before the House before making an announcement.

Mr. Younger: With respect, I do not think the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) has quite taken the point. I already have powers under a previous Act passed by the House to do this under regulations, and that is how I shall proceed until the Bill becomes law. I hope the hon. Gentleman will feel that that is fair. I should have thought that he would have been extremely pleased that I am, by this method, trying to extend to the children of some of his constituents on low incomes the chance to go to Dundee high school. I would expect him to be pleased about that and to be pressing me to allow as many of his constituents as possible to have this benefit, but perhaps I have misjudged him.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Will the Secretary of State accept that very few of my constituents wish to send their children to Dundee high school? Does he concede that one group who will benefit are the pupils at present at the school, and that that is what is behind the assisted places scheme? It is a method that the Government have chosen to give money back to the people who generally support them.

Mr. Younger: If the hon. Gentleman thinks about it, he will surely be pleased that some of his constituents on low incomes with children already at Dundee high school will get some help with the school fees. I should have thought that that would have pleased the hon. Gentleman, although I shall not press him to write a letter of thanks.
In reply to the hon. Gentleman's first point, I hope that he was not implying that, because only a few people would benefit from the scheme, it is undesirable. That is not the right way to look at it. If it benefits only one of his constituents he should be pleased about it.
I want now to pass on to clauses 6 to 8, dealing with the relaxation of controls. At present education authorities have to seek my consent to any school closure and to any change in their schemes of educational provision—these list the schools which they run, the stages of education which each covers, and the normal feeder arrangements

between primary and secondary schools—or in their transfer schemes, which cover other arrangements for transfer from primary to secondary education. These specific controls date from a time when the school system was closely regulated by central Government, and we believe that authorities should now have freedom to tailor their school system to meet local circumstances. Clause 8 therefore abolishes the requirement on education authorities to prepare schemes and submit them to me for approval, and schedule 9 repeals the specific requirement that they must seek my approval to any school closure. Clause 6, however, will ensure that parents' wishes will continue to be taken into account. Authorities will be required to consult parents before making changes of a prescribed kind and there will be power also to prescribe changes which will still require my approval.
I have given considerable thought to the effect on denominational schools of this relaxation of my controls. Let me make our position with regard to denominational schools quite clear. We have no intention of altering the balance achieved by the 1918 Act, still less of ending the existence of separate denominational schools. That is an assurance which I have been specifically asked to give. My concern has been to retain that balance. Thus, just as the Bill removes many of the controls at present exercised by the Secretary of State over non-denominational schools, so it proposes to end the present control over changes affecting denominational schools. But it provides a particular safeguard—where the closure of a denominational school means that its pupils will have to transfer to a non-denominational school, this will continue to require my approval.
The Roman Catholic hierarchy in Scotland, however, made representations to me about the proposed provisions of the Bill. It has emphasised that, although it has no apprehension that any existing education authority would discriminate against denominational schools, it still regards some mechanism to ensure the preservation of the underlying intentions and principles of the 1918 Act as essential. It has, therefore, asked for a right of appeal to the Secretary of State in any case where a proposal would, in its view, materially worsen the position of denominational schools in comparison with other schools. We have come to the conclusion that we should safeguard the present balance in this way, and we propose, therefore, to put forward a Government amendment in Committee to the effect that if a Church or denominational body makes representations to the Secretary of State stating that a proposal by an education authority would result in a materially inequitable distribution or materially unsatisfactory standard of denominational schools compared with other schools, and if I am satisfied that these representations are justified, the proposal will require my consent.

Mr. Frank McElhone: It appears that the hierarchy has been forced into an embarrassing and rather shabby manoeuvre by the Secretary of State. Having stood up for Catholic schools in Scotland at the Dispatch Box when I was a Minister I shall stand up equally strongly for non-Catholic schools in Scotland. May I give one constituency example? If the Adelphi secondary school is closed by the Strathclyde regional council—that is a non-denominational school and an excellent school and I am opposed to its closure—will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that I have the right of


appeal to him? If that right is not made available, it will be seen by many as discrimination in reverse. The Government have made a shabby deal.

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman knows a great deal about these matters. He will be able to ascertain whether the Roman Catholic hierarchy takes the view that he has outlined. As far as I am aware, it is grateful for the arrangement that has been made.

Mr. McElhone: It has been forced into it.

Mr. Younger: On the contrary, it requested the Government to make such arrangements if they could and that is what we have done. I think that it is grateful for that.
I emphasise that the nature of the appeal is not against the closure of the school but against any discrimination that a religious body feels has been exercised as against one denomination or another. This method of appeal is not open to a parent who wishes to object to a particular school being closed on the ground of that reason alone. The right of appeal will be open if it is an issue of discrimination of one denomination as against others.

Mr. McElhone: Again, I press the right hon. Gentleman to answer my question about the Adelphi secondary school, a non-denominational school, which is to be closed. Will I have the right of appeal to the Secretary of State or will that right be available to parents?

Mr. Younger: I shall have specifically to consider the case—

Mr. Canavan: Answer the question.

Mr. Younger: I am about to answer the question. I have got through only half the sentence so far. Labour Members seem to be getting over-excited. I shall have specifically to consider the case, but if it is a nondenominational school and if no question of denomination enters into it, there will be no right of appeal to me by means of the Act, assuming that Parliament enacts this measure. The only ground of appeal lies with denominational discrimination

Mr. McElhone: It is discrimination reversed.

Mr. Younger: It is not an appeal against the closure itself. It is an appeal against denominational discrimination if such is thought to have occurred. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have ample opportunity to make his views known if he wishes to do so.

Mr. Barry Henderson: Is there not a danger that the Opposition are being hypocritical? The hon. Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone) has made an allegation. Others have questioned the part of the Bill that we are now discussing. If there is any evidence that the Catholic Church claims that it has been pressurised as has been suggested by the hon. Gentleman, and if there is not a clear statement from the Catholic hierarchy that it wants this part of the Bill, will my right hon. Friend accept an amendment to delete it?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate what my hon. Friend is suggesting. It is probably best in the first instance for the hon. Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone) to ascertain from the Roman Catholic hierarchy—he is well equipped to do so—whether it approves.
I do not want to take up any more of the time of the House. I have given way on many occasions and I hope that hon. Members will now allow me to finish my speech. I am sure that many others wish to contribute to the debate.
I shall mention briefly some of the remaining clauses. Clauses 9, 10 and 11 are minor provisions concerning the registration of independent schools. Clause 12 merely puts it beyond doubt that an education authority has power to provide nursery teachers to work in day and residential nurseries, as some do already.
Clause 13 amends the legislation which established the Scottish Certificate of Education Examination Board in 1963, to extend the interests which can be represented on the board, to provide for the transfer to local authorities—in effect the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities—of the responsibility I have at present for approving the board's annual estimates of income and expenditure, and to substitute charging for presentations for the present arrangements by which I set annually the contribution due from each education authority to meet board expenditure. Education authorities and managers of non-education authority establishments will be responsible for meeting the charges for the presentations they make.

Mr. Maxton: May we have an assurance from the Secretary of State that the transfer of charges to the local authorities does not mean that local authorities will have the power to charge parents or pupils for taking examinations? There is some dubiety due to the wording of the Bill. Will he ensure that that is clarified?

Mr. Younger: I think that I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that the local authorities will not have such power. It is a different method of payment rather than a method that involves different amounts.
Clause 15 and schedule 6 deal with educational endowments. In accord with this Government's policy of reducing public expenditure and the size of the Civil Service, I have decided that my powers to reorganise endowments should be transferred to the Court of Session and the education authorities. The reorganisation powers of the Scottish Universities Committee of the Privy Council are also transferred to the court. I propose, however, to retain power to amend the constitutions of central institutions and I shall continue to maintain a register to aid people in search of benefits.
Clause 16 makes minor improvements to existing legislation for admission to teacher training courses. The primary object is to allow new regulations to be more flexibly drawn. Clause 17 transfers from the Crown to the respective university courts the power to appoint the principals of the universities of St. Andrews, Glasgow and Aberdeen. The courts and senates of the three universities themselves favoured the proposed change and Her Majesty has graciously expressed herself content.

Mr. Canavan: Hear, hear.

Mr. Younger: Finally, I shall deal at slightly more length with clause 14 and schedule 5, which provide for new machinery for negotiating the pay and conditions of Scottish teaching staff. The proposed structure derives from recommendations by the Houghton committee.

Mr. Maxton: Five years ago.

Mr. Younger: Yes, exactly. In place of five existing negotiating committees dealing separately with pay and conditions there will be two new committees dealing with both pay and conditions, in the one case of teachers in schools and in the other of teachers in further education


colleges, central institutions and colleges of education. Both committees will have representatives of the Secretary of State, the employers and of teaching staff.
Instead of the present cumbersome procedure under which the Secretary of State gives formal effect to settlements reached in the Scottish Teachers Salaries Committee by means of a memorandum and a statutory order, the new committees will promulgate settlements to employing authorities. The Secretary of State is required after consultations to prescribe the circumstances in which there may be recourse to arbitration and the relevant procedure. He is also empowered to set aside an arbiter's award by a statutory order subject to negative resolution.
This is a long Bill and I have taken up rather more time than I intended in describing it. However, it is an extremely important Bill which involves many education interests and is the fruit of a great deal of work within the Department. I have no doubt that hon. Members will have many matters to raise, which will be dealt with by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State when he replies.
I am rather surprised that the Opposition, as I understand it, propose to vote against the Bill. It may be that they are under the illusion that there is nothing in the Bill but the assisted places scheme, which affects only a few in our education system. The overwhelming balance of the Bill is devoted to improvements in the general stream of Scottish education for the vast majority of pupils. It should help to lessen the situation in which for many years parents have been expected to accept on behalf of their children whatever education is dished out to them without question. This is a major step towards introducing a much wider degree of parental choice into Scottish education.
If the Opposition vote against the Bill, they will be voting against parental choice and against the provisions for the better handling of disabled children. Further, they will be making a great mistake as many interests in Scotland will recognise that this is a Bill of great progress.

Mr. Canavan: Name them.

Mr. Younger: If Labour Members, having heard the debate, decide to vote against the Bill, they will be making a great mistake. It is one of the greatest education advances that we have had for a long time.

Mr. Bruce Millan: Deapite what the Secretary of State has just said, the Bill is largely without friends. The only support for at least one clause is from Her Majesty. The right hon. Gentleman was not able to quote anyone else on the contentious clauses in the Bill. The Secretary of State ought to know—if he does not he should not be where he is—that no reputable body of educational opinion in Scotland approves of what the Government are doing on the assisted places scheme.
The right hon. Gentleman began by saying that the Bill had to be set against a general educational background where all sorts of advances were being made in all sorts of directions in primary, secondary and post-school education. His description of what is happening in Scottish education is foreign to the experience of Opposition Members, and also to general educational opinion, on the current state of Scottish education, which is facing a series of crises, largely as a result of Government-imposed cuts

in public expenditure. When we consider some of the provisions of the Bill, which we welcome in principle— for example, the provisions on special education—we see how little reality there is in the claim by the Secretary of State that the provisions will make an appreciable difference to education in Scotland, given that there are no additional resources to be made available for them.
We must consider the Bill also, against the background of the prospects of employment for school leavers. According to the January figures, more than 20,000 school leavers are at present unemployed. That is a considerable increase on the year before. The prospects for those who will leave school in the summer of 1981 are bleaker than they have been since the end of the war. That is the reality of the situation that faces our young people, and unless yesterday's disastrous decision about Linwood can be reversed, it will make the situation considerably worse for young people in the West of Scotland. What is happening in Linwood in the West of Scotland is happening all over Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends should know that. It is against that background that we must consider the Bill. It is for those reasons that we say that the proposals are irrelevant to the needs of Scottish education.
The greatest irrelevancy is the assisted places scheme. I said that the Secretary of State was not able to produce one reputable body of educational opinion in Scotland that was in favour of the assisted places scheme. It is no good trying to pretend that the scheme will not cost more, when every other educational provision in Scotland is being cut. Additional money is being put into that scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) gave some of the figures.
The Labour Government decided that, over five years—incidentally, I now regret that decision—the assistance to grant-aided schools was to be phased out. In 1978–79 the amount of money going to grant-aided schools was reduced to £1½1 million. In the current financial year, 1980–81, that figure has been trebled to £3½4 million, when every other sort of educational expenditure in Scotland has been cut. Every day we read in the newspapers about a further cut in educational provision in Scotland. Today we read about a reduction in the number of post graduate studentships. Every day there is a further sign of more cuts.
The Secretary of State does not apologise for, but glories in, the cuts that he is making in Scottish education, yet this small, privileged sector of Scottish education, which is of no interest to the majority of our constituents and the constituents of every hon. Member, including Conservative Members, has been given favoured treatment by the Secretary of State over the past couple of years. The provisions in the Bill will give that sector even more favoured treatment over the next few years, unless, of course, we can remove these provisions before the Bill reaches the statute book.
We know why those provisions are in the Bill. They are there not only because Conservative Members are more concerned about private education than about the education that is provided for the majority of the nation's children, but because many of them have a positive dislike and hatred of local authority education. They have no interest in seeing that the education provided for the majority of our people is strengthened and improved as it should be. Education is, instead, being damaged by much of the Government's action.
Who will benefit from these provisions? If the Secretary of State can answer that question it will be a change, because he was not able to answer any questions during his own speech. Will he tell us which children are meant to benefit from the assisted places scheme? Will it be the least able, the most able, or something in between?

Mr. Younger: The answer is that by definition, low-income families will benefit. No one will benefit from the scheme by one penny unless a low income is being earned. The right hon. Gentleman refers to such people as privileged. How can they be privileged if they are lowincome families?

Mr. Millan: Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer my question? Will able children, less able children or a cross-section of children with all grades of ability benefit from the scheme? Why does he not answer the question?

Mr. Younger: I do not answer the question because I do not understand the point of it. The people who will benefit from the scheme will, by definition, be those with low incomes. Some may be very able, some may be not particularly able and some may be not very able. There is no restriction according to the ability of the child. The decision on whether the child will benefit will depend upon whether the family is on a low income. The right hon. Gentleman must decide and say clearly to the House whether he approves or disapproves of helping lowincome families. Why are they privileged if they are on low incomes?

Mr. Millan: The right hon. Gentleman is not answering my question. Either he does not know the answer, or he is unwilling to give the answer to the House. The Under-Secretary, who is not responsible for education, is now whispering the answer to him. Why cannot the Secretary of State give us the answer? It will depend on whom the schools select for entry to the scheme. Is that the answer?
We shall ask a second question following that. Will any conditions be laid down by the Secretary of State for selecting children for the scheme, with the schools seeing that they cover a range of ability, or are we dealing only with the most able pupils? Will he give an answer to that question, which is fair? I should like to have the information.

Mr. Younger: I still do not understand what the right hon. Gentleman is getting at. There is no definition of range of ability. The children who benefit may be of any ability—good, bad or indifferent. The common factor is that their families will all have low incomes and will all wish to exercise a choice in education. The right hon. Gentleman must come clean and tell us whether he approves of low-income families having a choice in education. Will he answer that simple question?

Mr. Millan: We may be making a little progress, although what the right hon. Gentleman says is not in accordance with my understanding of the situation. The abolition of selection at secondary school level was opposed by Conservative Members, although it has been the greatest step towards freedom of choice for ordinary children. Is the Secretary of State saying that he will ensure that the schools will admit children of a whole

range of ability? If that is his intention, it is news to me and to the schools concerned. I hope that that is the intention.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Dundee high school's preliminary form indicates that children will have to sit an entrance examination.

Mr. Millan: That is why I say that what the Secretary of State has just said will be news to the schools that are enthusiastically asking to participate in the scheme. The schools will not participate if he makes it a condition that they take the whole range of ability. I repeat that the measure is concerned with a small, privileged section of Scottish education.
There is no parental choice in a selective system. The greatest step towards choice came through comprehensive reorganisation. That movement has been almost wholly accepted by educational opinion in Scotland. I agree that there has to be some flexibility in local authority arrangements for admission to particular schools, especially at secondary level. The Secretary of State did not give much information about the authorities that do not exercise flexibility. What authorities do not pay attention to the wishes of parents, particularly over appeals against original allocation of schools?
I shall give some figures that demonstrate that, by and large, Scottish education authorities treat sympathetically appeals against original allocation. In 1980 Lothian region had 391 appeals, of which 265 were granted and 126 refused. The figures for earlier years also show that most of the appeals were granted. In 1980, out of 300 appeals in Central region, 226 were granted and only 74 refused. In the same year in Strathclyde region, out of 3,707 appeals 3,373 were granted. In most cases the appeal systems that operate in education authorities in Scotland are satisfactory.
I do not believe that it is sensible to legislate on such matters. The Bill sets up a cumbersome structure and we may find that a number of appeals that would have been granted under existing arrangements will not be granted. A balance has always to be struck between parental choice and administrative practicalities. Clause 1 lays down a whole range of circumstances in which an education authority must be allowed to exclude parental choice. The system will also become more rigid. Education authorities will have to lay down optimum numbers not only for each school overall, but at each level where it appears likely that there will be an excessive demand for places. That will create a bureaucratic structure that will cost authorities much more money than the amount provided for in the explanatory and financial memorandum.
The scheme has other deficiencies. In Strathclyde, for example, school councils handle appeals successfully. Schedule 1 provides for an appeal committee, and the school councils will apparently be excluded. In addition, the appeal committee will be made up mainly of members of the authority or the education committee of the authority. I do not disagree with that. Given the responsibilities of the education authority, it is difficult to have an independent appeal committee.
When the Bill is enacted, if the appeal committee turns down the appeal, it will then go not to the Secretary of State, but to the sheriff. The issues to be decided in such appeals are not suitable to be dealt with on a legal basis. The right hon. Gentleman says that he is concerned that


people on low incomes and with modest backgrounds should be able to exercise their rights of educational choice, but the worst possible way is by providing, for appeal through the sheriff. The appeal should be to the Secretary of State. Ordinary people do not like legal complications. I do not believe that the process will even be legally aided.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): It will be.

Mr. Millan: I am grateful for that information. However, I still feel that the appeal should not be to the sheriff. The matters to be decided are not merely the objective circumstances. There is an additional test of reasonableness. That sort of decision should be made by the Secretary of State, not by sheriffs. When the Undersecretary replies to the debate, will he say whether the sherriffs have been consulted and, if so, whether they are happy to take on the additional responsibility? I think that responsibility should not be placed on the sheriffs. The procedure is potentially unworkable in other respects, and it may lead to considerable disorganisation and dislocation in certain schools.
The Opposition are opposed to another aspect of the Bill, which again arises from the determination of the Secretary of State not to leave these matters to the good sense of the education authorities, but to prescribe all the rules himself in the form of legislation. I refer to the right hon. Gentleman's intention to publish examination results for individual schools. Not one body of educational opinion in Scotland has approved that proposal. Teacher organisations and others are wholly opposed to the publication of crude, external examination results for individual schools, because of the way in which the results can be misinterpreted and misunderstood.
Taken by themselves, the results are not a true test of how well a school has done. The matter has to be considered in relation to the circumstances surrounding the school—for example, the area in which it is located and from which it draws its pupils, and many other considerations. Once we enter the area of legislation—which is not necessary for Scotland—and try to lay down rules, instead of leaving matters to the education authorities, we get into all sorts of difficulties. For example, we must provide all the loopholes on which the education authority can rely to turn down an appeal. That may lead to a more rigid system than at present. There will also be difficulties about the publication of examination results.
While the clauses may appear to represent an advance for parental choice, the reality will be a good deal less than that. In many circumstances, parents will be a good deal worse off under this legislation than they will be if individual authorities in Scotland—who are basically willing—are encouraged to improve their administrative and other arrangements for dealing with appeals. In a period of falling school population it should be possible for education authorities to operate rather more flexible admission arrangements than has been the tradition. That is the way forward, rather than laying down rules in legislation.
I turn to clauses 3 and 4, which relate to special education. The Secretary of State was asked what additional money would be made available. He said that

he would look into the matter and answer the question later. He does not have to look into the matter and answer later, because the answer is in the explanatory and financial memorandum, in paragraph 1 on page v. No additional money will be made available for special educational needs. The Secretary of State should know that. Either he knows it but is not willing to disclose it to the House, or he does not know it, in which case he should not be introducing the Bill. As my hon. Friends have pointed out, without additional resources for special education the changes in the legal structure—important as they are—will, at the end of the day, have little or no effect on the quality and range of education for the unfortunate minority of children in Scotland who require special education.
The present legislative arrangements for Scotland are not all that old. They date from as recently as 1969. However, I agree that the changes provided for in the Bill should be made. I am simply saying that nothing of any substance will arise from the Bill to provide improved education for those children. Some aspects of the appeal procedure, including the appeal to the sheriff and the question of grant-aided or independent schools, will require considerable attention in Committee.
Despite my dislike of private education, grant-aided and independent schools, I agree—although I make a distinction here—that certain independent schools, usually run on a non-profit-making basis by voluntary bodies, are necessary to deal with certain aspects of special education. The figures that I quoted earlier did not include assistance to those schools. There is no party difference about those schools. I am not against the provision in the Bill that allows a parent, in certain circumstances, to ask a local authority to send his or her child to one of the non-local authority schools that provide special education for children with disabilities—for example, blind or deaf children. Obviously such provisions must be included in the Bill, but I do not believe that the provisions for appeal are sufficient to protect the interests of local education authorities, which are genuinely trying to build up provisions for such children within their local arrangements.

Mr. Peter Fraser: The right hon. Gentleman has explained his attitude towards children with disabilities. He said that he would not take exception to such children being sent to independent schools. Does he include in that classification or exception children of special ability, especially children who are musically gifted?

Mr. Millan: The assisted places scheme is not concerned with what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting. It is concerned with privilege and, in many cases, sheer snobbery. In that respect we are talking not about special ability, but about giving additional financial assistance to those who simply want to contract out of the local education system for reasons that have nothing to do with education.
I pass from the question of special education to that of school closures. The provisions in the Bill may seem to be an advance on the face of it—this is true of much of the Bill—because the argument is that it gets the Secretary of State off the backs of local education authorities, but in truth, the provisions are included for entirely different reasons. The clause relating to closures is included


because the Secretary of State is currently encouraging local education authorities to close small schools, especially rural schools, in Scotland. That is the reality. Not only rural schools, but schools in cities too are being closed. They are being closed not against the right hon. Gentleman's wishes, but with his positive encouragement. That is why there is a continuing toll of school closures. It has not proved difficult in the past for the Secretary of State to be the final appeal authority for school closures. That was not a tremendous burden on the Scottish Office. During my period in the Scottish Office all such matters were dealt with personally by Ministers.
I do not remember spending a great deal of time considering school closures, because the number if closures was small, but the position has changed now, because the Secretary of State is asking local authorities to close their schools. In his typical, dodging manner, he does not want to be associated with that. He wants them to do his dirty work for him. That is the reality of clause 6. The right hon. Gentleman pretends that it will no longer be his responsibilty, but then includes a provision that says that parents must be consulted. In my experience, no Secretary of State—and this is true of myself and, I believe, of former Conservative Secretaries of State—ever allowed a school to be closed without assuring himself that the parents had been properly consulted before authority was given. The Bill provides no additional protection to ensure that consultation takes place.
Consultation does, of course, take place. Indeed, no school is closed without consultation. In some cases a school is not closed because the Secretary of State decides that the education authority is not behaving reasonably. The right hon. Gentleman is trying to get out of having to take unpleasant decisions. He is perfectly happy that these decisions should be taken by somebody else. The Government's policy lies behind the need for those unpleasant decisions to be taken. Once the law is changed in this way, qualifications and special provisions have to be inserted.
The Secretary of State gave a rather elaborate explanation of the provisions for denominational schools and the amendment that is to be introduced in Committee.
The right hon. Gentleman can try to explain the issue as much as he likes. He can explain it to the House, and his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State can explain it in Committee. If two school closures take place in any area—whether in Glasgow or anywhere else—and if one concerns a denominational school, and the other a nondenominational school, the Secretary of State may believe that the parents will find it acceptable for an appeal to be able to be made to him in one case, but not in the other. If the right hon. Gentleman believes that, he could not be more misinformed about the feelings that are engendered by such issues.
The Secretary of State is going down an extremely dangerous road. He has admitted that there will be a need to appeal to him about denominational schools, but there will be an equal need to appeal to him about non-denominational schools. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to avoid a good deal of unnecessary aggravation, bitterness and resentment, the answer is not to introduce further amendments that will deal with one category of school, but to withdraw the clause. We should maintain the present system, under which school closures need the

Secretary of State's authority. In that way there can be no suggestion that one section of the community is being treated more favourably than another.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman listened to the points that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Queens Park (Mr. McElhone), because he knows a good deal more about Catholic education than does the Secretary of State. Instead of giving those rather self-satisfied answers, the right hon. Gentleman should have listened more carefully.
I turn to the pay machinery contained in clause 14. This is another example of a clause that says one thing and means another. The Secretary of State's speech did not disclose the reality behind the clause. I welcome the revision of the committees and their rationalisation into two committees—one for schools and one for post-school education. It is right that salaries and conditions of service should be considered together. I say that in defence of local authorities. It might be convenient for the teachers to keep the two items separate, but education authorities also have some rights. Therefore, salaries and conditions of service should be considered by one committee.
There are difficulties about the composition of the teachers' side of the committee. The Bill does not meet those difficulties. However, we can return to that problem in Committee. The Secretary of State must know that even if we get things right it will still be possible for one union to dominate the teacher's side of the committee. I am not sure how that can be avoided, because various teaching unions have different views.
I am more interested in what will happen to the management side of the committee. The Secretary of State told us nothing about that, yet he is represented on the management side. He has never told us how he operates in such matters—or at least when he has told us how he operates we have not believed him. Until now, not only was the Secretary of State—or his representative—part of the committee, but there was a "concordat" between him and the education authorities. As a result, he had a deciding voice in the total offer made by the Scottish Teachers' Salaries Committee. That was well known. The authorities did not like it, nor did the teachers, but it was an honest way of dealing with the matter.
Under that system everyone knew that the offer had the Secretary of State's approval. There is now a different, and completely dishonest way of behaving. The Secretary of State can now say that the offer has nothing to do with him. He does not care what the managament side offers. He does not intervene. However, only 6 per cent. will be provided in the rate support grant. The management side can do anything that it likes. The right hon. Gentleman does not care whether 60 per cent. is offered, but he will provide only 6 per cent. That is a fairly dishonest way of behaving. It means that the local education authority has to do all the dirty work. Indeed, the whole Bill is concerned with taking the dirty work away from the Secretary of State and passing it on to the education authorities.
It is humbug to say that the education authorities will have greater freedom. That is clearly illustrated by the arbitration provisions. Although the Secretary of State says that he does not want anything to do with arbitration, he will—under the Bill—be able to set an award aside without giving any reason. Under existing legislation,


such an award can be set aside only if national economic circumstances determine that that should be so. The House makes that judgment.
The Bill contains an unjustified provision which will enable the Secretary of State to intervene on any ground. Indeed, there are parallels with another Bill that is now being considered in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman is judge and jury in his own case. He may simply say that he does not like the award and set it aside. That is an objectionable feature of the Bill, and we shall oppose it in Committee.
The Bill is largely irrelevant to the needs of Scottish education. It has many objectionable features and that is why we shall vote against it tonight. It does not include certain aspects that require attention. For example, the Secretary of State still has not given a satisfactory answer to our questions about the colleges of education. Nor have we been offered a satisfactory opportunity to discuss this issue on the Floor of the House. Hon. Members should remember the fiasco in the Scottish Grand Committee, when the right hon. Gentleman did not even have the courage to vote for his own proposals, but sat there and allowed them to be defeated. I have never known a greater muddle when debating education or any other subject. I have never known an education issue in which the personal integrity of the Secretary of State and of the Undersecretary has been more at stake or more criticised by responsible educational interests.
I am not accusing right hon. and hon. Members of being liars. I know that that is not part of our parliamentary procedure. The right hon. Gentleman and the Undersecretary know that educational interests in Scotland have accused them of being liars. If the right hon. Gentleman had any regard for his reputation he would be more than anxious for the matter to be fully debated and ventilated in the House. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would be more than anxious to demonstrate that his figures for the savings that will result from the closures are accurate, and to show that the alternative figures provided by the colleges are inaccurate. I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would be more than anxious to have such matters fully debated in the House, particularly as he knows that he has not convinced half the members of the House of Commons Scottish Tory group. The Secretary of State is dodging the issue and he has got the Leader of the House, on successive Thursdays, to dodge it as well.
We do not intend to let this matter rest. Even if it cannot be discussed on the Bill, it will have to be properly discussed. On this, as on so many issues in Scottish education, and indeed a considerable number of other matters for which he has responsibility, the Secretary of State's reputation is in tatters. It will certainly not be enhanced by this shabby and dishonest Bill. That is why we shall vote against it this evening.

6 pm

Mr. Michael Ancram: We heard from the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) what amounted to a reselection speech. It bore very little relation to the Bill, but a great deal of relation to other matters on which he felt he could make a populist speech. To the extent that he dealt with the Bill, he did so

with a series of questions. On the meat of the Bill, his speech was more of an interview than a constructive contribution to the debate.
Certain of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks filled me with great surprise. He said, for instance, that he did not think that sheriffs were the right people to decide what was in the best interests of children. If he were to ask his colleague, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), he might learn that sheriffs spend a great deal of the time dealing with custody and access cases, and deciding what is in the best interests of children. As the right hon. Gentleman himself said later, and as many of his colleagues are saying in the Standing Committee on another Bill, the discretion of the Secretary of State is sometimes too widespread. Yet here is another area in which he would like it to be increased. To me, that part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech defied both comprehension and reality.
The most indicative part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was what it lacked. I listened very carefully to what he said and I made a number of notes. One thing was lacking, namely, anything about parents. That sums up the attitude of Labour Members to education. They seem to think that it is a matter for the State rather than for parents. Conservative Members believe that education is about children and parents, and I believe that that is the spirit in which the Bill has been introduced.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us where in the Bill one finds the paramountcy of parental choice?

Mr. Ancram: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I shall refer in the course of my speech to what the Bill does for parental involvement and participation. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, this is a progressive measure. In a sense, for the first time in many years, it takes Scottish education out of the crystallised cobweb of bureaucracy in which it has been stuck for far too long. Most important of all—I shall explain why in a moment—the Bill brings the parent back into the educational picture.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Where?

Mr. Ancram: I shall come to that in my own time. It does this in a real, practical way which will itself create a greater involvement of parents.
The principle that parents should have a major say in how their children are educated is widely regarded as a human right, but the present structure has effectively denied parents that right. From what the right hon. Member for Craigton, and some of his colleagues have said, it seems that there is an underlying horror in their minds at the idea that parents might know best what is good for their children. I hope that they will tell us in the course of the debate whether they believe in parental choice. Do they accept that part of the Charter of Human Rights that says that parents should have the right to choose where and how their children are educated? Do they believe that? If they do not, they should come clean about it.
The present law regarding parental choice is a dog's breakfast. The principle of choice is enshrined in law. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State read out the relevant section. The principle that a parent has the right to decide how his child should be educated is enshrined in


the law, but it does not—or, if originally it did, it cannot now—provide the means for allowing such choice effectively to be practised.
In my view, the basic problem has been the introduction of rigid catchment zones, which was part of a philosophy of levelling down, which has created the equivalent of "bos-ing" in certain cities and which at the end of the day allows bureaucrats to try their hand at some form of social engineering. That has led to the most insidious form of choice, namely, the choice that can be exercised only by having the cash to buy a house in another area. That is happening in my constituency. I find that kind of choice unacceptable, and I believe that the Bill sets out to deal with it.
That form of choice has given rise to an even more insidious act of bureaucratc administration. That is the idea that, if the bureaucrats do not like what is happening in an area, they can simply change the catchment zone by redrawing the line. There is an instance in my constituency in which that is likely to happen in the near future. Many people who have children at a particular school may suddenly find that those children are moved.
Clause 1 opens the door to allow parents an element of choice.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Gentleman's entire speech so far has been about how marvellous the Bill is in providing the paramountcy of parental right to choose. He has now given the game away by saying that clause 1 gives them "an element of choice". That is precisely why the Bill is defective.

Mr. Ancram: Of course it is an element of choice. The hon. Gentleman must be aware, as I am sure my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench are aware, that one cannot say to everyone in the country "You can all send your children to whatever school you wish without any restriction at all", because that would cause chaos. The Government are beginning to create the flexibility which I understood even the right hon. Member for Craigton welcomed in a qualified sense, and which over a period of time under this legislation will allow parents to choose where to send their children to school.

Mr. George Foulkes: Mr. George Foulkes (South Ayrshire) rose—

Mr. Ancram: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but before doing so I must say that I found his behaviour deplorable in not being present to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at the beginning of the debate.

Mr. Foulkes: I have heard the Secretary of State many times before on this subject. Before I came into the Chamber I was talking to pupils, which is the best way of finding out what is happening in the education service. The hon. Gentleman is expounding the theory of choice. I ask him to imagine a situation in which a school, because of its confines and the accommodation available, has a possible secondary intake of 100 places but 200 applications. How will the choice be made?

Mr. Ancram: I understand that it will be up to the headmaster to decide, on the basis of the nature of his school, which children would be best served by coming to that school. That is my understanding of how the Bill will operate.

Mr. Foulkes: This is a very interesting train of argument. I think that the hon. Gentleman is being briefed

by the Under-Secretary of State. Let us consider the situation in which there are 200 applicants and the choice is made by the headmaster, on the basis given by the hon. Gentleman. What criteria will the headmaster use? Will the choice be based on academic ability, on sporting ability, or simply on whether the applicant's face happens to fit?

Mr. Ancram: As I understand it, the criteria will be published. It is not for me to say what they will be. But I can tell the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes), who for some time, much to the disadvantage of education in the Lothian region, was convenor of the education committee there, that on the day of his election to this House there were more smiles in my constituency about his having left that job than perhaps at my own election.
One of the more interesting sessions that occurred during the election campaign was when a number of Labour supporters came to see me to ask how they could get rid of the now hon. Member for South Ayrshire. I sent them out of my constituency to canvass in his, because I said that that was the most efficient way of ensuring that the hon. Gentleman no longer had a hand in education in the Lothian region.

Mr. John MacKay: I should like to take the theory of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) a little further. Does my hon. Friend agree that perhaps the education authority ought to take into account the fact that so many people wish to send their children to the school that the hon. Gentleman postulated? Should not that education authority ask what sort of education that school provides, and should it not ask the schools that are not attracting pupils to move in the educational direction of that popular school?

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It was a point that I had intended to make later. This is one of the advantages of allowing flexibility and choice within the education system. I am, however, slightly anxious about the number of exclusions for which the Bill allows. As the right hon. Member for Craigton said, it could, in effect, be used as a bureaucratic block to choice. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider this matter carefully.
I am also anxious about the fact that it appears to be left to the local authorities to decide the capacity of the schools. In areas such as mine, where the education authority does not seem to like the idea of allowing parents to exercise choice, it seems that local authorities will be able to block the purpose of this legislation by setting optimum capacity figures too low and saying that there is no room for choice to be exercised. I hope my hon. Friend will also consider that point.
It seems that the real argument of Labour Members, including the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, against the Bill is that in some way it will create distinctions, differences and some insidious form of privilege. In the vast number of cases in which I have been involved since the election where parents have been unable to get their children into the school of their choice they have come to see me not for reasons of distinction, difference or privilege. For example, one parent did not believe in corporal punishment, but her child attended a school in which corporal punishment was exercised. She felt that


she should have a right to have her child removed to another school, but the Lothian education authority did not seem to be too keen on that.
Another parent came to me because he had moved out of one catchment zone into another. At the same time he had moved nearer to the school that his children attended. Yet it was only after three or four applications to the transfer committee that it saw the sense of allowing his children to stay in the original school.

Mr. Neil Carmichael: In an area such as mine, which until recently has had a large number of fee-paying schools, it is important to try to spell out the criteria. Whenever parents who were trying to get a choice of one of the fee-paying schools came to see me it was usually because one of the children had been admitted—perhaps the eldest son—whereas the daughter, or the youngest son, had not. As a result, the family was torn to pieces. The criteria for entry included passing an entrance examination. Is that the the sort of criterion that the hon. Gentleman thinks should be used again?

Mr. Ancram: I apologise if I have been unclear. The hon. Gentleman appears to be talking about criteria for entrance to the assisted places scheme, whereas I have been talking about the choice within the public sector, which is being allowed for under clause 1. I was referring to the reasons why people want the ability to exercise such choice—for instance, a genuine, even though personal, dissatisfaction of a parent with the school that his child attends. If that is a strong dissatisfaction, it is important that that parent's wishes should be taken into consideration. Far from creating division, it can create an incentive to schools to level up their standards rather than continually level them down.
In a document sent to us the Educational Institute of Scotland warned of the danger of leaving
ghetto schools of children of uninterested and non-inspiring parents".
Has it ever asked itself why parents might be uninterested and non-inspiring? What incentive is there in a system that has no choice—as we so often find in the Lothian region—for the average parent to be interested or inspiring in a child's education, when the part that he can play is so strictly limited? The Bill creates flexibility, choice and variety. The change is carefully controlled, because it has to be, but in my constituency, which has had numerous problems with the transfer committee it will be warmly welcomed.

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: How many?

Mr. Ancram: I shall reply to the hon. Gentleman, who has intervened from a sedentary position. The right hon. Member for Craigton said, as if it were a fantastic point, that two-thirds of transfer appeals in the Lothian region had been allowed. If there are places available, as there were in respect of many of the primary applications last year, for the other one-third, I want to ensure that, unless there is a specific, strong and stated reason—as is required by this legislation—for not allowing the parents to transfer, the transfer will be allowed. That is why I so strongly welcome what is proposed in the Bill.
I turn to the question of appeals, which was also mentioned by the right hon. Member for Craigton. I

welcome the clause that deals with this matter. In the past, while there has been theoretical choice, it has gone far adrift. All too often we have heard of decisions being taken in smoke-filled rooms and enclosed committees. At present, when a parent appeals to a sheriff, the law requires no reasons to be given by the sheriff court why it finds in favour of the committee. All that the sheriff must do is be satisfied that the transfer committee has "considered" the parent's application. There is no definition of the "considered", and there is no requirement for the transfer committee to tell the sheriff court the criteria or reasons for its decision in the first place. I should have thought that Labour Members would find that level of decision unacceptable, if not dangerous, in a democracy.
The Bill provides an open appeal system through which the merits of the case can be argued and decided upon, rather than allowing an enclosed decision to be taken, which all too often may be subject to political prejudice. I cannot believe that Labour Members are against that.
I shall not speak at length about assisted places. However, I found the remarks of the right hon. Member for Craigton bogus. He made the point that so much money would be spent, but he should appreciate that it is money that is being spent already. Although it is at present being spread across a broad area, the Government intend to apply it to the area which, in a sense, has a far greater need for it—that of the low-income families. Instead of this being an increase in privilege, I see it as a way of bridging some of the gaps and the chasms that exist within our education system. I sometimes wonder whether Labour Members are fighting the Bill because they are frightened that by dilution their favourite hobby-horse will be destroyed and they will have nothing to argue against.
I turn to the provisions of clauses 3 and 4, which relate to special educational needs. I warmly welcome those clauses. Particularly during this year, it is right for the Government to proceed with such legislation. I should, however, like to raise one point, and it might be useful if the Minister considers it before the Bill goes into Committee. I notice that whereas it will be obligatory for education authorities to record children who come into this category from the age of 5 onwards, it will be discretionary for them to do so in respect of children below the age of 5.
My fear is that when something is left to discretion it often is not done. While there are logical arguments for saying that the need is greater when the school age comes, there are categories of children who need assistance before that stage. I would instance deaf children. If they are ever to be schooled reasonably normally, they have to be taught to speak before they reach school age. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to consider ways of including these children within the obligation side of this provision, either in Committee or at a later stage.
The Bill broadens educational choice. It broadens educational variety. It broadens parental involvement. I do not expect Opposition Members, or even educationists, to accept it, because it diminishes and dilutes State power and educationist power. It gives back genuine power and genuine rights to parents. It boosts the family at the expense of the State. It recognises an important human right. For those reasons, I support it wholeheartedly.

Mr. William Hamilton: As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) was speaking, I wondered which school he attended. The fact is that most Conservative Members went to private, fee-paying schools. When they talk about parental choice, we on the Opposition Benches tend to reach for our guns.
There are very few bodies of informed educational opinion in Scotland that approve of the contents of the Bill. When the Secretary of State was questioned on that specific matter, he refused to answer. He knows very well that what we say is true. Not a single teaching organisation, or any educational expert opinion, agrees with the main contents of the Bill, largely because it is regarded as socially divisive. It is also regarded as highly irrelevant. My right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) has already made these points.
I shall deal first with the irrelevance of the Bill. Neither in the short term or in the long term will the Bill make any notable, or significant comtribution towards solving the problems faced by Scottish education. My right hon. Friend made the point about school leavers. They are the seed corn. The whole future of the Scottish economy depends on how we handle the school leavers. The sad story is that these youngsters, mainly as a direct consequence of the Government's policies, are being thrown onto the scrap-heap of the dole queue. No one appears to give a damn what happens to them. If the Bill had been scrapped and replaced by a Bill dealing with a compulsory and statutory educational and vocational programme for the 16 to 19 age group, it would have received unanimous support not only in the House but throughout Scotland. We are, however, faced with the Bill before the House.
I have a copy of The Times Educational Supplement which contains a report headed "Army service idea for young jobless." The article states:
The Ministry of Defence has asked the Manpower Services Commission for its views on army training for unemployed young people. The Government is considering a proposal but it will need Mrs. Thatcher's approval.
That is the Government's approach to this problem. They want to put these youngsters in uniform. If they are put in the Army, that will get rid of those on the dole right away.
The gloss put on the Bill is awe inspiring. The Secretary of State used phrases such as "the most inspiring" and "the most exciting" initiative since 1945. At one time, we had a tenants' charter. Now we have a parents' charter. This Government behave like a sleazy, crooked, second-hand car salesman. That is exactly how the Secretary of State behaved in trying to sell us a second-hand car riddled with rust, saying it was a magnificent vehicle, guaranteed to solve all the problems of Scottish education over the next 20 years.
I turn to the socially divisive parts of the Bill, especially clauses 4 and 5 relating to the fee-paying sector, the grant-aided schools. The presumption, emphasised by the Secretary of State in his speech, is that a better education is available to the children of poor parents in that sector. The implication is that a superior and better education is available to those who can pay and an inferior one in schools that happen to be attended by 95 per cent, or more of all school children in Scotland. The Government are taking steps to emphasise the superiority of the one for the privileged minority and the inferior status of that to which 95 per cent, or more of the children of Scotland go.
An article in the Daily Record today deals with parental choice. It refers to this scheme of creaming kids off from the State sector into these other schools and says:
The charter"—
that is to say, this parental choice lark that the Tories are trying to sell—
has been given a mixed reception. The general view in education circles is that there are so many snags attached, the provisions will make little difference. A recent survey showed that eight out of ten families were happy with the schools their children attended.
That is the measure of the general consent in Scotland with the way things are now operated. The Bill recognises that it is not the case that parents can have any meaningful choice, even within the present situation or within the terms of the Bill. The Bill lays down in clause 1 a whole lot of exceptions. A whole page of the Bill is covered with special cases in which parents cannot have their choice. There are 10 reasons why parents cannot have that choice. For the Government to pretend that the Bill gives wider choice is nonsense and is known to be nonsense by everyone interested in education in Scotland Insofar as it works at all, it will mean that the abler children will be creamed off from the State sector and put into that top 4 or 5 per cent. That is why the Bill is socially divisive.
My right hon. Friend tried to pin down the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State talked about children of poorer families. The fact is that such children will have to pass an entrance examination. To emphasise its socially divisive nature, the Government have provided additional resources.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) has made the point, as did my right hon. Friend, that additional resources have been put into the private privileged sector while 95 per cent, of children attend schools which are short of staff and face threat of closure.
The Government are encouraging authorities throughout Scotland to sack teachers. That emphasises the divide between one section of the country and another. When the Prime Minister and her cohorts mouth phrases about one nation, let me tell her and the Government that no Government since the war have done more to divide the nation in educational terms, job terms and social services provision than this. Government. The Bill is part of the same process.
If there were a public opinion poll in Scotland on this Bill, I should like to gamble on the outcome. The humbug that is perpetrated daily by the Prime Minister and other Government spokesmen about uniting this nation is denied by this legislation. It is an outstanding example of it.

Mr. Foulkes: In effect, there was a public opinion poll on this issue at the last general election. The Conservative Party's election manifesto commitment on the matter was overwhelmingly rejected by the people of Scotland.

Mr. Hamilton: We make that point whenever a Bill of this sort is introduced.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Craigton asked the Secretary of State about the method by which schools are closed. In the name of so-called freedom for the education authorities, the Secretary of State is passing the buck. He is getting them to do his dirty work, and he is giving them the so-called freedom to take the unpopular decisions that are a direct consequence of his policies. What freedom does the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act—the so-called tenants' charter—give to local


authorities? The Secretary of State told local authorities that they would be compelled to sell council houses at knock-down prices.

Mr. Henderson: That was nothing to do with the tenants' charter.

Mr. Hamilton: I am saying that that was the misleading trade description of the Act. It gave the tenant the right to buy his house, but there was no obligation on the part of the local authority that owned the house to sell it. This legislation is in line with that Act. It is divisive between those who have and those who have not. The Government are in for a rough passage with the Bill in Committee. They had better get out their midnight oil, because they will need every gallon of it.

Mr. Iain Sproat: The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) referred to the freedom of local authorities with regard to the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act and to the freedom of local authorities with regard to the Bill. The Bill is an extension of freedom, not because it has anything to do with freedom for or from local authorities, but because it extends freedom of choice to parents. That is the central principle on the Government side of the House, just as the central principle of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act was the extension of the principle of freedom of choice to the tenants. It gave them the chance to own their houses if they wished to do so, just as the Bill extends the rights of parents to send their children to the schools that they prefer, even if the local authorities do not.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that if there was one phrase or theme on which he would like to concentrate, it was that of freedom. He is right. That theme runs through the Bill. It is the principle to which the Government are dedicated—to taking control from bureaucracies and restoring it to individuals, taking power from central authorities and restoring it to individuals and families. That right is taken from local authorities over housing and restored to tenants in the same way as the Government are seeking to put the emphasis on indirect taxation rather than direct taxation, and are seeking to restore freedom of choice to individuals in medical matters. They are doing the same in education. That is the principle upon which the Bill is so strongly and rightly based.
I should like to exemplify the theme of freedom in some aspects of the Bill. Clause 1 deals with the parents' charter, which has been much derided by Labour Members during the debate. That was one of our manifesto commitments. We stated:
Our parents' charter will place a clear duty on government and local authorities to take account of parents' wishes when allocating children to schools, with a local appeals system for those dissatisfied.
That is what we promised, and that is what we have done. I believe that hardly a parent in Scotland, apart from the most rabid Socialists who put political dogma above the interests of their children, will not welcome the extra freedom of choice that the parents' charter gives to them.

Mr. Henderson: Is it not a fact that the Consumers Association has particularly welcomed that?

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I look forward later to hearing speeches from Labour Members trying to deny it. I hope that when they do so, they will quote the document that my hon. Friend mentioned, because they will find the words taken out of their mouths and denied therein.
I have listened to the speeches this afternoon and to speeches from certain local authorities in Scotland. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) that some authorities will do everything in their power to frustrate the will of Parliament and parents. They will seek to use the objections that are rightly written into clause 1 in terms of expense and numbers to do so. I hope that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Scottish Office will make certain that no local authority in Scotland will be able to frustrate the will of the people over the Bill, as they have tried to do by delay or false reports in the case of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act.
One other point is worth making in regard to the extension of freedom of choice. At present, if parents are desperately keen for their children not to go to one school, but to go to another local authority school, they are compelled to try to get another house in another catchment area simply to be able to do so. That is an undoubted fact, and if the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) does not know it, he does not know anything about the needs of parents in Scotland. [Interruption.] I am told that the hon. Gentleman has done that himself. The House can draw its conclusions from the hon. Gentleman's sedentary non-interruption.

Mr. Foulkes: I hope that I shall have the opportunity later to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and elaborate on that point in great detail, and I hope that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) will be present to hear me.

Mr. Sproat: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also take the opportunity to explain to his hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central why he was educated where he was. It would be interesting to hear a dialogue between the hon. Gentlemen on that aspect.
In our Conservative manifesto we also said that schools should be required to publish details of their examination and other results.

Mr. William Hamilton: League tables.

Mr. Sproat: The hon. Member for Fife, Central says "League tables". I do not suppose that there is anyone in the House or anyone in education who seriously thinks that examination results are the only criterion by which the excellence of a school should be judged. Surely no sensible person will deny that examination results have a very important part to play in judging the success of a school. Whether or not anyone in the House believes that examination results are important, it is not up to us to deny parents information about examination results.
We are not saying that a school must publish its examination results and that on those results parents will make their judgment. We are simply seeking to make the information freely available. If parents wish to send their children to a school which achieves very high academic results, so be it. But there will be many parents who will prefer to send their children to a school where the discipline is better, or where the sport or the music facilities are better.
We on the Conservative Benches do not choose to tell people how to decide to which school to send their children. Our aim is to provide parents with all the information they require in order to be able to make up their own minds. Indeed, in that very phrase "to make up their own minds" lies the central difference between Conservative and Labour philosophies. We believe that people should have the right to make up their own minds, whereas Labour Members try to prevent people from doing that.
No doubt, where the examination results are not at first sight very impressive, headmasters will say to parents and to prospective parents that the reason is that they prefer to concentrate on character building than on trying to tune up the intelligence quotients of their pupils. Parents will be able to make distinctions, and no doubt those distinctions will be valid. None the less, it will benefit parents to have the maximum information published. Schools will be able to make their own cases explaining why examination results or other aspects of education are higher or lower in the scale. It will be up to the parents to make the choice, not the local authorities. That is the prime principle that is involved in the Bill.
The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) implied that there would be certain schools in which the rolls would fall simply because parents would not want to send their children to those schools. That may very well happen, but if parents demonstrate—by, as it were, voting with their children's feet—that they do not want their children to go to a particular school, perhaps they will be telling us something about that school. The local authority may then ask the headmaster why his school is consistently not chosen by parents and suggest that he do something to make it more appealing to parents. In effect, this is a piece of educational democracy, because it is giving to parents the right to tell local education authorities in which respects they believe on education to be inadequate.
But it is not only a matter of criticism; it is also a matter of praise. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire gave an idiotic example in which 200 people wanted to send their children to the same school. Surely if that happened it would be wonderful praise for the school involved. Just as some comments from parents would indicate to the local authority where schools were failing, other comments would indicate where certain schools were successful. That would enable the local authority to say what parents wanted, and to urge that other schools should provide more of it.

Mr. Ernie Ross: In Dundee there is a school from which almost every parent would like to remove his child. I refer to Rockwell high school. But parents cannot do so, because of the failure of the hon. Gentleman's Government to provide funds for Tayside region and the failure to build the Ardler high school. For that reason, children have to go to a school that is described as being below standard and that is 50 or 60 years old. In that instance, the parents have absolutely no choice.

Mr. Sproat: I shall be interested to hear my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Fraser) deal with the problems of Dundee if he manages to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker. But in general, as a result of the Bill, parents will have more chance of not being compelled to send their children to the school in question than they would if the Bill did not exist.
Clause 5 deals with the assisted places scheme. This is not, as has been explained, a major part of the Bill in terms of the number of children that it will affect, although one would not think so, judging from the volume of comment from the Labour Benches. None the less, although it is a minor part of the Bill, it also exemplifies the principle of freedom with which the Bill—and, I hope, all our Bills—is informed. What is certainly true is that parents who would not otherwise be able to afford to send their children to grant-aided and independent schools will be able to do so as a result of the Bill.
This cannot be claimed to be privilege, because the only children involved will be children of parents on low incomes. Labour Members may twist the English language as they will, but they cannot equate low-income families with privileged families. When Labour Members talk about privilege it simply shows that they are determined to twist the words of the Bill and to refuse to recognise the realities of it.
There is no doubt that the assisted places scheme will help those children whom Labour Members ought to want to help—the children of low-income families. It will enable parents to widen their choice by sending their children to the schools that they choose rather than the schools that the local authorities may nominate. The assisted places scheme, like the parents' charter, enlarges the freedom of every parent in Scotland. For that reason, I warmly support the Bill.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: The main criticism of the Bill must be that it is fraudulent in the way in which it is presented. When there is talk of the parents' charter, it has to be accepted that, perhaps apart from the Lothian region, for which special legislation is being made, most other areas of Scotland provide choice to parents who object to their children going to particular schools. My experience of Tayside region—a local authority with which I am usually at variance—is that the education department goes out of its way to try to meet the wishes of parents.
It is perfectly possible for the Government to produce an improved procedure by which the parents' wishes can be achieved, but to pin the whole case for the Bill on the claim that it is a so-called parents' charter comes into the realms of fraud. Indeed, we are discussing the Bill in a context in which the money being made available to education is being cut back. So the Government, on the one hand, are talking in rhetorical terms about freedom of choice, but, on the other hand, their educational expenditure policies are restricting the development of an improved education system.
Many schools in Scotland are under the threat of closure-—about 50 this year, ranging from remote rural primary schools to at least one urban secondary school. So the choice of school—in numerical terms and in terms of distance—will be narrower for parents than it would otherwise be by the time that this year has ended.
The Government are asking local authorities to reduce their spending by about £20 million this year. The recently published Scottish Education Department statistics indicate that the Government are expecting a reduction of 4,250 teachers in education authorities this year, to comply with the cutbacks. If there are declining school rolls—as undoubtedly there are—that should be used as a method by which to improve the quality and standard of


education in our schools. It is a contradiction in terms to say that the Government are planning greater freedom in choice when they are busily running down the system instead of improving it. Real freedom will come only when standards and expenditure in State schools meet the expectations of all those involved—teachers, pupils, parents and the future employers who expect good standards to be achieved by the school leavers whom they seek as employees.
One of the problems facing our schools is the difficulty of motivating pupils. I have a letter from a school's council which said that, because of the lack of opportunity which children know that they will have when they leave school to get a job, they cannot see any reason why they should push ahead and work hard to improve their educational capability. It could be said that that is a job for parents. But children are realists. Against the backdrop of the declining economic situation, they realise that qualifications may not help. They may know someone two or three years older who is leaving school with the lower or higher leaving certificates who will not get a job. Even university graduates are finding it difficult to get jobs. It is therefore hardly surprising to hear school councils say that it is difficult to motivate children to work hard.
In surveys about deprivation several years ago it was well understood that deprivation could be eradicated if opportunities for work and the quality of life were improved. Education is just one piece of that jigsaw. If opportunities for work are not provided, the ability of schools and teachers, however dedicated, to improve the education of the children will be affected, because the co-operation of the children is needed.
It is a sad reflection on the piecemeal approach to Scottish education that 60 per cent, of our youngsters leave school without qualifications. The Government should tell us more about the pilot schemes for the implementation of the Munn and Dunning reports. The scheme seems to be dragging on interminably. I believe that 1986 is the expected date of implementation.

Mr. John MacKay: I was about to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the Munn and Dunning reports as a way of reaching those pupils who cannot do O grades. The worst thing that any Government could have done with Munn and Dunning was to impose the scheme on schools. I can assure the hon. Gentleman from bitter experience that resources have nothing to do with it. Pushing proposals on schools without proper trials is a certain road to disaster.

Mr. Wilson: I am prepared to accept part of what the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) says, because I agree that to rush implementation could be potentially disastrous. It is a matter of common sense. However, the implementation seems to be going ahead at an extremely slow pace. Criticism of a non-party political nature can be made of the speed at which the Government are moving.
During the recess I visited a secondary school. I met a group of teachers there who had gathered from other schools in the Tayside region. Their meeting was part of the warm-up and response to the two reports. It was clear that the proposed scheme was intended to introduce the reforms which had been approved. But I believe that the

pace of implementation is too slow considering the almost 100 per cent, backing for the reports. I know that some people object to them, but they are in a distinct minority.
The Government seem to be shifting the blame for the closure of schools and colleges from their own door to that of the education authorities. During the IMF cuts, the Scottish Office, under the Labour Administration, was very willing to answer parliamentary questions about the detailed actions of and responsibilities for local government, but it was unwilling to do so once it became apparent that those cuts were to be passed on to local authorities. The unpopularity also was passed on.
It appears that the Secretary of State has learnt one or two practical political lessons. His Government and his Department, with the help of the Treasury, will the means by which some schools are to be kept open. Therefore, he has some responsibility. It is somewhat cynical that this measure, which has been introduced with a blast of trumpets as a parents' charter, should be a way of sliding out of any responsibility, except in the small concession made for Roman Catholic schools.
I shall say a word or two about the appeals procedure in relation to parental choice. It seems reasonable to have a committee composed of people who are not necessarily members of the local authority. The case could be argued as though it were the type of tribunal which deals with simple complaints about the levels of rates or valuations.
However, it is rather surprising that, after the appeal stage, it is necessary for the parent to apply to the sheriff, not on a ground of law, which is normal in appeals to tribunals, but in order to bring about a re-hearing of the evidence. This is a most unusual appeal system. Are there any parallels for it in other legislation? Also, I hope that the Government will justify why they need a double-barrelled approch to the appeal system, instead of an appeal on fact to the committee and then an appeal on law to the sheriff.
As a solicitor, I tend to favour appeals to the sheriff court because it is a way of keeping the profession in work. But, I know from experience, that the cost tends to inhibit many people from taking appeals further. I notice that the reference to expenses is somewhat ambivalent. It will need a very determined parent to take an appeal to the sheriff.
Double standards are being brought into play in the proposal for assisted places. I cannot understand the justice of this proposal at a time when the public sector is facing enormous cutbacks. I have never been a devotee of grant-aided schools, and I voted against the aid given to them in the past. But it is entirely unjustifiable to give £800,000 at a time when an enormous retrenchment is taking place and when facilities are not being provided by the Government for the improvement of the system. It is downright disgraceful. The Government may say that the proposal is justified because it is based on their party manifesto, but it is entirely wrong to bring it forward at a time when they are cutting back the State sector by about £20 million.
I conclude my remarks with a reference to children with special needs. I am sure that this part of the Bill is welcomed by all hon. Members. However, it was significant that the Educational Institute of Scotland, in commending this part of the Bill which implements the Warnock report on the education of handicapped children and young people, said:
it affords an outstanding example of the determination of Governments to will the end without the means.


I hope that the Minister will tell us what means the Government intend to will to put this into legislative effect.
I draw his attention to the recommendation in that report that there should be a provision of a "named person" to help parents of handicapped children to deal with the vast numbers of different experts whom they see while the child is being assessed for special education. It is difficult for the parent of a handicapped child without any experience of the system to find his way through the labyrinthine corridors. A "parent's friend" should be appointed to help out. I understand that that recommendation is supported by most of the organisations involved in the welfare of handicapped children.
A good opportunity for legislation on vocational training has been lost. The Bill provides an ideal opportunity for the Scottish Office and the Secretary of State to invoke the new Special Standing Committee system. Members who were fortunate, or unfortunate, enough to be members of the Committee could then interrogate experts on the practicality of the Bill and of the means which the Government are willing. The Committee could take a balanced opinion. I am sure that after hearing the evidence such a Committee would decide that the Bill was a fraudulent prospectus.

Mr. Ian Lang: It is clear that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) will have nothing to do with Centre parties. He is obviously taking a massive lurch to the Left. He is stepping from the crumbling ruins of his existing party to the smouldering ruins of the Labour Party.
I am astonished that Opposition Members find it so difficult to say anything good about the Bill. The Bill deserves a broad welcome. It is full of highly commendable provisions. It must be difficult to be an Opposition Member and to treat a Bill in that way when it so clearly responds to the needs of Scottish education and the aspirations of Scottish parents. It is essentially a benign and relevant measure. It will improve the nature and quality of Scottish education in the years ahead. I can only assume that Opposition Members fell back on their naturally sour reflexes when responding to the Bill.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend not only on the Bill, but on the intense and detailed preparatory studies, and the publication of discussion papers ahead of drafting the legislation. Of course, opinions might differ on points of detail and minor changes might be sought in Committee. However, the structure is sound and the intentions commendable.
I accord a particularly warm welcome to the parents' charter in clauses 1 and 2. I cannot emphasise too strongly the duty of parents to take responsibility for the education of their own children. Anything that helps to bring parents to a closer involvement and interest is helpful.
As the 1962 Act points out, the duty to provide efficient education for every child of school age
suitable to his age, ability or aptitude" 
rests on the parents of the child. Local authorities, which have too easily arrogated to themselves the right to dictate to parents on educational matters and based their approach on the belief that parents did not know enough to recognise what was in the best interests of their children, did those children and the cause of education a grave disservice.
I look forward to the closer involvement of parents that will result from the Bill because of the greater freedom of choice, the appeals procedure and the need for local authorities to respond to it. This can lead in the long run only to better education standards and a better rapport between schools and parents, as well as a more relevant and responsive approach to the education process in our schools to fulfill the needs and bring out the talents of pupils.
I turn to a problem in my constituency in the context of increased parental choice. I refer to the secondary schools in Kirkcudbright, Castle Douglas and Dalbeattie with which my hon. Friend the Minister is familiar because he has been conscientious in his attention to correspondence on the matter. In the past, Castle Douglas and Dalbeattie high schools were fourth-year schools, from which pupils went on to complete their education at Kirkcudbright, a few miles away.
In 1977 the Dumfries and Galloway regional council decided to upgrade Castle Douglas from a fourth-year to a fifth-year school. That was achieved in 1979, with extremely satisfactory results in terms of examination results and increased morale. However, in Dalbeattie there remains a problem because it is still a fourth-year school.
Upgraded schools obviously allow for the easier implementation of the recommendations in the Munn and Dunning reports. In spite of churlish remarks of Labour Members about those reports, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the decision to implement their recommendations. That is yet another constructive initiative in Scottish education by the Government.
Dalbeattie, with 360 pupils and still a fourth-year school, is in the largest town in the Stewartry of Kirkcudbrightshire. The town is still growing, but the school has a falling roll. Although it has the smallest percentage fall in the number of pupils in the constituency, the school roll is falling faster. It is the only school in the immediate area without all-through secondary education. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Monro) has a similar concern with the school at Langholm.
The strong, social and educational case for upgrading a school of that nature is clear. There are transport problems caused by the longer day away from home when pupils have to be transported further away. There is the loss of extra-curricular activities which results when the pupils have to come home, with a corresponding effect on morale. There is the decline in the morale and career prospects of the staff. Great expense is involved if parents decide to take away their child before the fourth year to transfer to Kirkcudbright to provide a smoother education in the later years, but that is what is happening.
In 1976, 10 pupils transferred in the second and third years to Kirkcudbright. In 1977, 14 pupils transferred, and in 1978, 20 transferred. Last year, in addition to several from the second and third year, 10 were transferred from the primary department, bypassing Dalbeattie high school altogether.
Dalbeattie high school has a fine reputation. It has a good staff, who have a genuine concern for the pupils in their care and for the well-being of the school and the town. However, unless the school is upgraded from a fourth-year to a fifth-year school, they will fight a losing battle. Upgrading would cost about £300,000. That is a large sum.

Mr. Craigen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is not this a Second Reading debate and not an Adjournment debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Traditionally, we can have a wide discussion on Second Reading.

Mr. Lang: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The sum of £300,000 is high even in an education budget of £30 million. Consideration has been given to building temporary classrooms at a lower cost of about £50,000. I have corresponded with the Minister about that. I understand the block allocation method of financing capital expenditure and that discretion and responsibility properly remain with the local education authority, but the increased emphasis on parental choice, which I warmly welcome, intensifies the problems of schools such as Dalbeattie.
Competition is healthy. It raises standards. Equality of opportunity is also highly desirable. We are opening up the desirable new perspective of parental choice. Is there not a corresponding duty to help competing schools to get on an equal footing? Perhaps consideration can be given at the Scottish Office to a form of special allocation or special direction to the Dumfries and Galloway regional council, and to other councils, because achieving the future viability of education in such schools has an importance that is out of all proportion to the costs.
Clause 6 deals with the withdrawal of the Secretary of State's powers over school closures. I greet that with mixed feelings. I should have been reluctant to see the powers forfeited, because they are a useful long-stop against a doctrinaire local authority. However, having seen them fail to save Gatehouse secondary school in my constituency—a closure that was not justified on educational, social or financial grounds and that took place in the face of the near unanimous opposition of parents, pupils, teachers and others in the area—one realises that the powers have been operable within such narrow constraints as to be of little value.
I acknowledge my right hon. Friend's reluctance to intervene in the affairs of local government and to have a proper regard for devolution. As the powers do not seem to be effective and allow closures of schools of that nature, it would probably be better to withdraw them altogether, as the Bill proposes, than to maintain a lingering cloud of doubt about where the responsibility lies. Once the powers are withdrawn, responsibility will be seen clearly to lie with the local authorities, which will not in future be able to shelter behind the Secretary of State to avoid the consequences of their decisions.
I accept that the local authorities' task is not easy. They are subject to pressure from two directions. On the one hand, they have pressures of operating within the financially sound and responsible constraints set by the Government and, on the other hand, they have pressure from falling school rolls. In those circumstances some schools must inevitably close, but I am anxious that that should be the last resort. I am not always convinced that that has been the case. Educational expenditure has risen enormously in the past 20 years. Since we came to office, it has increased in real terms per pupil this year and last. One must ask why schools are now closing. One cannot

help but wonder whether too much is spent on non-essential and administrative back-up instead of in the front line, in the classroom, where educational expenditure should take place.

Mr. Maxton: I have heard the argument about more money per head time and again from Conservative Members. Of course, in a sense, it is true, but if there are fewer children in primary schools, where expenditure per head is inevitably lower, and more children at the top of a secondary school, where expenditure is inevitably higher, the average per head will come out higher. Those are the statistical facts that the hon. Gentleman should get straight instead of perpetuating myths and rumours.

Mr. Lang: I am glad that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) agrees that what I have said is true and that he accepts the analysis that I made earlier. The matter is one of priorities. I am anxious to ensure that the closure of rural schools is a policy of last resort and not a policy of first resort. There are three primary schools in my constituency that are rumoured to be in danger of closure.
I shall not bore the House, as it is unwilling to take an interest in my constituency's serious problems. I shall not impose the problems further. Suffice it to say that I am in touch with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on the matter, about which I am greatly concerned. I want to be sure that the closures do not take place for doctrinal reasons, for the belief that big is beautiful or that education is more easily administered in large units. A school is the linchpin of a rural community. It can mean the difference between the survival of the community, with young families staying and sending their children to the school, and decline and depopulation.
When we were in Opposition we made strong statements in support of the need to maintain rural schools. I have repeated those, and I am sure that many of my hon. Friends have, as a candidate and since we took office. I know that my right hon. Friend's heart is in the right place, but I hope that his Department will continue to keep a close watch on developments and bring whatever influence he can to bear on local authorities and fight hard to save the small rural schools, which are so important to the well-being of country areas.
I do not wish to detain the House, but I should like to mention the assisted places scheme, which I regard as an extension of the parent's charter. Philosophically it is impeccable. It introduces freedom of choice, strengthens the variety of education, increases the provision of specialist education and absorbs a tiny proportion—about · per cent.—of the total education budget in the area of independent schools, where about 3· per cent, of pupils are educated. Thus, it relieves pressure on the State system, but it will bring about the better application of funds than the direct grant system that it replaces. Twice as many schools will be involved and there will be a commendable widening of opportunity, with the finance going to the child in need rather than to the school.
The scheme is criticised as being selective. Certainly it is, because it excludes well-off parents earning over £9,000 per annum. I welcome that and the fact that there is no creaming off to the detriment of State schools. Selection is on a broader base than academic ability. It should be emphasised to critics such as the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), who claims that the


scheme is a slight on the State educational system, that the choice is made not by the Government but by parents. It is they who choose to apply for places, who decide that their children's needs are best served in that way and who make massive sacrifices over many years, not just during the education period, to give the child the education that they consider best for it.
One of the criteria of the Secretary of State's task in selecting schools to join the scheme is to find the best geographical spread. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that that is a factor that prevents the scheme from having an even-handed advantage to children from all parts of the country. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend to consider the possibility of introducing some sort of distance factor loading or increased income exemption for parents living some distance from a school. With the present financial limits, my constituents live so far from the majority of schools that boarding, which many cannot afford, would be essential. If I have a criticism of the scheme, it is that it is too restricted and too limited. The principle of assisted places can be boldly and clearly justified and such unfairnesses as exist can be removed by extending and broadening the scheme.
Labour Members always become schizophrenic about independent schools. Half of them went to such schools or came to the House on an assisted place from some trade union. Now they want to kick away the ladder of opportunity. The confused state of mind that that can engender is well illustrated in an article that I tore from The Sunday Times some while ago, when a certain Mr. Peter Jay was interviewed shortly after taking up an assisted place at our Washington Embassy.
It is a revealing interview:
Q. Do you consider yourself a Socialist?
A. Yes.
The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) listens to me as though he were a public meeting.
Q. Why then do you send your children to public school?
A. I send one of my children to a fee-paying school because it's the best school for her.
That is a perfect example of the exercise of parental choice in the interests of the child.
Q. Which arises from an immediate concern for the family rather than a long-term concern for society?
A. I remember reaching this conclusion when I was 17, and it's always seemed to me to be logically correct, though there have been times when, out of my concern for my reputation with people who don't see it the same way, I might have bowed briefly to misconceived, though sincere, pressure.
Hon. Members will recall that Mr. Jay was a Wykehamist, whose motto is "Manners Maketh Man". I should add that some of my best friends are Wykehamists. The answer continues:
Basically, it's like this. In the conduct of your life, some of the questions you face are about what kind of society you want to live in. They're political questions demanding collective actions, and you should vote or work politically for what you believe to be the right answers. But you also have responsibilities to your family and to the people you work with, and they have to be answered on a different time scale.
Here we come to the central philosophical thrust of the argument:
If we live in a jungle it's no good refusing to let your children wear boots on the grounds that you believe it would be better if they lived in a carpeted hotel.
The decision you make must be related to the circumstances that are relevant to that decision, and it's not a question of rights, it's a duty—in some ways a disagreeable and expensive one—to make the right decision on behalf of the person you're responsible for, not to make the decision you would make if you lived in a different world.

I suggest that that is the purest example of Socialist intellectual self-deception and twaddle that I have ever come across. It is humbug of a kind that typifies the Socialist approach to such matters, indeed to all matters of education. On the whole, the Bill is sensible and relevant to the needs of Scottish education. It deserves a smooth passage to the statute book, and I wish it well.

Mr. George Foulkes: I imagine that after that performance the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Lang) will be applying for an Arts Council grant rather than an educational grant. I am genuinely sorry that I was unable to be here for the Secretary of State's speech. A group of pupils from my constituency was visiting the House and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that it is important to talk to pupils and to find out what they think of the education system.
I am particularly sorry to have missed the right hon. Gentleman's speech, because he is my Member and he will know that, like the rest of my hon. Friends who are in the Chamber, I send my children to local authority schools. That shows that we have faith in the system that we are discussing, unlike Conservative Members who have no confidence in the system on which they presume to legislate. That reveals a lot about those hon. Members.

Mr. Canavan: My hon. Friend said that he was a constituent of the Secretary of State. May I complete the triangle by pointing out that the Secretary of State is my constituent? I sat through the whole of his speech and I can assure my hon. Friend that he did not miss anything.

Mr. Foulkes: Whereas I send my children to schools in the Secretary of State's constituency, I doubt whether he sends his children to schools in my hon. Friend's constituency.

Mr. Ancram: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what school he went to and, more important, which catchment zone his children came under when he lived in my constituency?

Mr. Foulkes: My children have always gone to the school in the catchment area in which I lived, whether it be Fiennes or Ayr grammar school. I am talking about parental choice and my making the decisions for my children. I will not be diverted by the catcalls of Conservative Members.

Mr. David Myles: The hon. Gentleman has not replied to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram). Is he ashamed that he went to Keith grammar school?

Mr. Foulkes: I am not ashamed that I went to a school in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but that is irrelevant to the matter before us.
There are normally great expectations among the unions, local authorities and other bodies concerned with education when an education Bill is published. But this Bill was greeted with dismay and anger—

Mr. Peter Fraser: By the Labour Party.

Mr. Foulkes: No, by everybody in education. The Under-Secretary will have received letters from the Educational Institute of Scotland, the Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association and every other organisation concerned with education. None supports the Bill. Apart


from the special education provision, which I welcome, and the technical changes in the negotiating machinery, the Bill is irrelevant to the major problems in education in Scotland.
There is another reason why we should not have the Bill before us. I say, more in sorrow than anything else, that the Bill, which undermines the comprehensive system in Scotland and perpetuates and extends privilege in education, has been presented because of the campaign carried out by some hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook), Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) and, particularly, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham).
Education in Scotland should be being considered by an elected Scottish Assembly. That was the will of Parliament and of the people of Scotland. It would have been a Labour Assembly and we should have had a better Bill which was relevant and tackled the major problems in education. Instead of that, we have a Bill which will be carried through by a majority of English Tory Members who are nowhere near the House at present but will come in from their clubs at 10 o'clock to push the Bill through.
Most of the Bill is the brain child—I use the word "brain" as loosely as possible—of the Under-Secretaries of State, the hon. Members for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) and Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind).

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): Who me?

Mr. Foulkes: The Bill is born out of the prejudices of and promises to the Edinburgh bourgeoisie.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman was one of them.

Mr. Foulkes: The other Edinburgh bourgeoisie. The Bill has no relevance to the major problems in education, including the education of the 16-to-19 age group, the relationship between education and training and a comprehensive system of further education, all of which were dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan). It has no relevance to the problem of indiscipline in schools. We have heard about Munn and Dunning, but what about the Pack report? That has been consigned to the shelves. Dust is settling on it. It has been sent packing.
Nothing is being done about the major problems in education. Instead, we are presented with the product of the discussions on the so-called parents' charter—a phoney charter, a prigs' charter if ever I saw one. It is a charter for the rich to opt out, either to private schools or to a new form of selective State school, with selection based on criteria that are even more suspect than the discredited 11-plus and the qualifying examination.
When I asked the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) what would be the criteria for choice, he could not answer the question, and I doubt whether the Under-Secretary will be able to answer it. They do not know what the criteria will be.

Mr. Robert Hughes: We know.

Mr. Foulkes: Indeed. We know exactly what the criteria will be.
Conservative Members have asked whether we are against choice. The Labour Party is not against choice in

education. We are greatly in favour of it. We are in favour of choice within a school and choice from a wide curriculum. However, the choice of curriculum is being narrowed because of the Government's public expenditure cuts. Some schools are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain a whole range of education.
We are in favour of choice between schools within agreed parameters, but, as the hon. Member for Galloway said so nicely and so elegantly to his hon. Friends, choice in rural areas will be severely limited by the policy of the Government and there will be wholesale school closures in many areas. There will be no question of a choice among two or three schools.

Mr. Younger: As a former chairman of an education committee, can the hon. Gentleman tell us how education committees can be narrowing choice within schools when we are providing more money per pupil this year than ever before?

Mr. Maxton: I explained that. The right hon. Gentleman did not listen.

Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has already dealt with one aspect of that matter. The other aspect is that per capita expenditure will, of course, increase as the number of pupils falls. But that does not mean that the range of choice is increasing. I challenge the Secretary of State to go to the schools in his constituency. He will see that secondary schools are having difficulty in maintaining courses. If he comes to my constituency, he will see that there are secondary and primary schools that are no longer able to carry out specialist instruction in music, physical education, sewing and other subjects, because of the Government's cutbacks. If the Secretary of State ever went into a school in Scotland, he would know what is happening.
We are also in favour of pupil choice—much more radical than parent choice—and it is about time that Conservative Members realised this. We realise, particularly those of us who have some experience in local government, the problem of the education authority, as does the Scottish Education Department. It produced one of its occasional papers—we wish that it would produce them more often—on choice, compulsion and cost. I wonder whether the Secretary of State and Undersecretary have even read it. They are not reacting. I doubt that they have, because if they had they would realise the problems in education. They would realise some of the practical problems facing local authorities. One is the capacity of buildings in each year and for each course of study. That limits the number of pupils who can go into a school. That is a very important criterion.
I was asked by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat), who is no longer with us, to deal with the question raised by an hon. Member about the representation from the Scottish Consumer Council to the effect that capacity of the building should not be included in the Bill. I am glad that it is included. I am glad that the Government have taken the advice of officials and have included it, because if there were no reference to the capacity of the building, there would be gross overcrowding in schools. That would be totally outrageous. We should have complaints about overcrowding. There would be complaints about safety in schools.
It is totally irresponsible for a body like the Scottish Consumer Council to make this suggestion. It puts in doubt its whole submission.
There is also the question of staff availability. One cannot transfer staff willy-nilly from one school to the other, as the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) knows only too well, being a former teacher, just because pupils are moving in hundreds, by the whims of the parents.
The professionals in education talk about the need for forward planning in education—planning is something about which Conservative Members forget and the need, for example, for mobility of labour; and who is encouraging mobility of labour more than the Prime Minister? There is also the question of late entrants moving into a particular area. There being no place in the local school for late entrants, can cause great difficulties for a family moving into the area.
Some Conservative Members and local authorities want to phase out obsolete buildings—not just 50 or 60 year-old-buildings but 70, 80, 90 and 100 year-old-buildings. This will become increasingly impossible if they pack pupils into schools using annexe after annexe, as they have had to do in Leith academy because of the sheriffs ruling.
Another point in the report related to the importance of primary and secondary links. A lot of people have been suggesting that secondary schools should increase their links with primary schools in the catchment areas so that the transfer of pupils from primary to secondary is not a traumatic, difficult experience. A secondary school can build up links with a primary school if there are three, four or five in its catchment area and it knows most of the pupils from the primary school are transferring to the secondary school. If there is a scatter, helter-skelter throughout the city, these links cannot be built up. A secondary school cannot build up links with primary schools throughout a city.
What is being suggested by Conservative Members would destroy the whole concept of community school. A school is not just a place where a young person goes from the age of five to the age of 16 for education between the hours of 9 am and 4 pm. A school is a whole resource for a community. Increasingly it is a place to which adults can go. Grannies can use the educational facilities alongside their grandchildren. It is a place where the communities meet. That is not possible if pupils are scattered round the city. Therefore, the concepts of primary and secondary school links and community schools would be lost if we were to accept what is being suggested by Conservative Members.
Finally, hon. Members opposite are suggesting that parents should be able to send their children to any school that they wish. But they are also saying that no funds will be provided to transport them, so that if they choose a school the other side of the city, they will be all right if they have a car or can afford to send their children on the buses. Again the poor parents would be handicapped if we were to accept what is being suggested by hon. Members opposite.
What motivates the Government if all the arguments put forward by the professionals are against them? The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) spoke of experience in the Lothian region. Let us look at the experience in the Lothian region, about which I know something. There have been a few protests from a few individuals in Edinburgh. The statistics show that last

year, of 11,308 transfers, only 126 were refused places of their own choice. That means that 98.9 per cent, of the parents were satisfied. There is no disputing that statistic.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I understand the argument which my hon. Friend is putting forward. I do not wish to prolong his speech, or anyone else's for that matter, but if there were 11,000 appeals, I wonder whether he would address his mind to the possibility of devising better machinery so that appeals would not have to be heard.

Mr. Foulkes: I may have misled my hon. Friend. There were 11,308 transfers. In fact, there were only 391 appeals. Of those 265 were granted and 126 were refused. I hope that I have shown the very small number of pupils with whom we are dealing. We have the whole panoply of the Bill for those pupils. We have schedule 1. I shall pick two holes, although there are hundreds of holes that could be picked. Paragraph 3 of schedule 1 provides that the appeal committee
shall not include any person employed by the authority".
Bus drivers, sewerage workers—a whole range of people—might be ruled out. Why should they not participate in the appeal? If there is to be an appeal, why cannot bus drivers participate?
Paragraph 5 provides:
A person shall not be a member of an appeal committee" 
if he took part in a previous discussion. In a local authority most councillors will have taken part in either the committee or council discussions. One could pull holes in this whole structure. It is ridiculous that we should set up such a complicated structure for a system that is working well at the moment.
There are a number of criteria. In the Lothian region, if parents want to send their children to another school, if there is a brother or sister already in attendance, they may do so; or if there are medical reasons; for road safety or travel reasons; or because they are single-parent families; or because the parents are employed in the police force; or because an educational course is not available in the local school. These are currently the arrangements in the Lothian region.

Mr. Ancram: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the criteria which may be written on some piece of paper are applied uniformly in the Lothian region? I have had instances in my constituency which fitted those criteria when transfers were refused.

Mr. Foulkes: Until the last election I sat regularly on all the committees dealing with these matters and those were the criteria. We are replacing those with no criteria, just parental choice. No one will consider these important social, medical, travel and other criteria. It will just be a question of parental choice. A mythical 200 people may apply for the 100 places and only the headmaster or some strange system that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South does not know about will make the decisions.
Finally, the appeal will be to the sheriff. I agree with my right hon. Friend and speak from experience, having gone as a witness to the Edinburgh sheriff court, when I say that the sheriff is a totally inappropriate person to deal with these kinds of appeal. The sheriff has no knowledge of the system. More than half of our sheriffs and judges in Scotland went to private schools and have no knowledge of the public education system whatsoever. They have no framework within which to judge whether to grant or dismiss the appeal. If there is to be a second appeal, it


should be to the Secretary of State. Even a Tory Secretary of State would be better than a sheriff. At least he would have the advice of Her Majesty's Inspectorate and be able to give some professional consideration to it.
Even more obnoxious is the assisted places scheme. It is a strange sense of priorities to have cutbacks in every region in local authority schools when we are receiving letters from the Educational Publishers' Association saying that books are not being bought by schools, when there are cuts in school maintenance leaving buildings in a deplorable condition and when school meals are worse than workhouse meals a hundred years ago. In some of our schools the children are being given bread to eat, while those who already have cake with jam on it are being given cream on top of that.
Most private schools in Scotland are in the East and in Edinburgh, and this scheme means that taxpayers in the West will be subsidising the privileged education of those in the East. I hope that one of the first priorities of the next Labour Government will be to end this scheme immediately, with no phasing out as there was the last time round. These schools are the breeding ground of privilege. They are where the problems we have in industry today are born.
The Bill is a ragbag of prejudice and privilege. It is irrelevant to the major problems in education. Whether in the area of education or industry, the Government and the Secretary of State have failed lamentably. It is the young people of Scotland who will suffer, and the sooner we relieve the young people of Scotland of this Government the better.

Mr. John MacKay: I am honorary parliamentary adviser to the Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association, and it would help that association if I were to make it clear that our views on some parts of the Bill do not coincide. The association is opposed to the assisted places scheme and to the parents' charter, but it welcomes most warmly the Warnock part of the Bill.
I start by referring to some matters in the Bill that are important, but are not the meat of political controversy. I wish to mention briefly the Scottish certificate of examination board—clause 13. I am doubtful about the addition to that board of extra institutions. I am particularly doubtful about the addition of advisers to that board. If advisers are part of the educational directorate, and if the educational directorate wishes to appoint advisers to the board, it should appoint them as part of its number and not expect them to have separate places on the board.
The proposed new method of charging is an improvement on the present method. It is better that authorities should be charged in direct proportion to the number of presentations. I was pleased to hear the assurance that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), that there was no danger that authorities might pass those charges on to the pupils. I hope that authorities will not allow financial considerations to rule the number of pupils presented, because schools have an obligation of responsible presentation. Schools that present pupils who do not get double figure results in the examination board marking are being irresponsible. They are wasting the

pupils' time by asking them to pursue courses for which they are not suited, they are wasting money by asking the examination board to do the marking, and they are also suggesting to pupils that they might be capable of doing something which the staff in the school ought to know that they are incapable of doing. While schools should exercise care about presentation, I hope that authorities will not use the Bill as a way to lever schools into cutting the number of presentations merely for economic reasons.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will have second thoughts about removing the Secretary of State's discretion to give money to the examination board. While I cannot immediately think of a situation in which the Secretary of State might have to give money, it is conceivable that there will be a situation in which the board has a financial problem, and the power of the Secretary of State to give financial aid should be kept.
Clause 14, which deals with the teachers' salary negotiating machinery, is important. The Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association would like to have the machinery of a standing independent commission to determine teachers salaries, not a "Clegg", but something that could look at the broad picture of teachers' salaries. I find it difficult to justify that for teachers alone in the light of all the other people who work for local authorities, but the association feels that it might help to cut down the annual wrangling and disruption that have been features of our educational service. I fear that that annual disruption owes a little to the infiltration into the teaching profession of some Left-wing people with a militant motivation.
I welcome the coming together, in the same committee, of salaries and conditions of service. I know that some parts of the teaching profession would prefer to keep them apart, but it is not practical for those two important and interlinked aspects to be kept in separate committees. It makes sense that the committee dealing with salaries should also deal with conditions of service, and I welcome it.
Two committees, one for FE and one for schools, are to be set up. I wonder whether there is a case for having three committees. The staff and the conditions of service in primary and secondary schools are different. I wonder whether the differences in qualifications in these two sectors do not merit two separate committees, one for primary and one for secondary. The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) said that at present the Secretary of State is responsible for the cost of the salary memorandum. As I understand the Bill, that will be changed and the parties will be responsible for the cost. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider whether it is fair that the cost should be put on to the shoulders of the teaching profession and of the employers.
Perhaps the most serious aspect of the Bill occurs in the FE and school sections. Attention has been drawn to it by the SSTA, the Federation of Associations of College Lecturers which represents The Scottish Further Education Association, the Association of Lecturers in Colleges of Education in Scotland and the Association of Lecturers in Scottish Central Institutions. Having read the proposed sections 92(3) and 95(6) as set out in clause 14, I am left with the feeling that after the Secretary of State fixes the number of teachers, a majority of the committee—it is not too difficult to see that one union could dominate both bodies—could decide to add one of its own members to the teachers' side. Then, to keep within the numbers, it could exclude the members of another union. I hope that


in Committee we can resolve this dilemma, if it is there. I hope, too, that my right hon. Friend, either tonight or between now and the Committee stage, will look into the distinct possibility that the minority union on the teachers' side, and the smaller unions representing sectors of the FE part, might find themselves voted off by the majority using what will be sections 92(3) and 95(6) of the 1980 Act.
Another matter that concerns the negotiating machinery is the significant change that is being made to the chairmanship. At present the chairman of the negotiating body is independent, but in schedule 5 there is the proposition that the chairman should be drawn from the committee. I urge my right hon. Friend to reconsider that proposition. There is considerable advantage in having a neutral chairman appointed from outwith the employers and the teachers' sides. That is especially important when there is deadlock and the dispute has to go to arbitration.
I hope that we shall not move towards a position where both sides are required to agree before the issue can go to arbitration. At present, if the chairman feels that there is deadlock and he receives a request: for arbitration from one side—this happened in 1980—he can decide to send the issue to arbitration. That is an important role that only an independent chairman can fulfil. It would be a hopeless position if the chairman were drawn from one side or the other and he had to make a decision, either for or against his own side, about going to arbitration.
I ask my right hon. Friend to consider the change that he has made in the overturning principle. I do not disagree that at the end of the day the Government have to have the power to overturn an arbiter's decision. However, I think that the present position, in which the Secretary of State has to resolve positively in the House that the arbiter's award should be overturned, is better than the long-drawn-out and rather negative process of laying a statutory instrument on the Table. That means that there is no debate and no argument in the House unless there is a prayer to annul. It is unlikely that my right hon. Friend, or any future Secretary of State, will wish to overturn an arbiter's decision, but it is better that the Secretary of State does so positively, rather than go about it in a negative manner.
I fear that clauses 3 and 4 on special education needs have not received the attention that they merit. It is especially important in this year of the handicapped that we should be introducing these proposals, which are a direct result of Mrs. Warnock's report. Last week the parallel English and Welsh Bill was given its Second Reading, and I shall refer to some parts of that measure.
I welcome my right hon. Friend's decision to make an alteration in the appeals procedure as outlined in the White Paper. I know that he received a number of representations, including my own. I am delighted that he has moved from the position that meant that the appeals committees set up by local authorities to deal with matters such as the parents' charter were to decide whether a child should be recorded. A change has been made, and if a parent is aggrieved about a decision to record-he will have a right of appeal to the Secretary of State.
That is important, because the grounds on which such an appeal will be based will be medical or psychological. I do not think that those grounds could be judged by the sort of appeals committees that we were considering. Their composition would not have been sufficient to allow their members to make a judgment on medical and psychological issues.
The House will know that the education difficulties of the handicapped child are as many as there are handicapped children. The proposals in the Bill recognise that fact. No longer will children be categorised, and we shall have a record of their education needs, rather than a note of their handicap. There are many divisions of handicapped children in our schools. It is difficult to make any contribution that will cover the various areas of difficulty. There are many children whose problem is mental. They are not handicapped to the extent of physically handicapped children, in that their problems are not so obvious, but those problems are just as real when it comes to education in primary or secondary schools.
At present the children who do not quite merit being sent to a special school on mental grounds and who go to an ordinary school are all too often not treated as they should be in that school. When the Bill becomes an Act, as I know it will, I hope that the Education Department will take every possible step to ensure that the schools in our system are coping properly with the children that they are already receiving who are mentally handicapped.
There are children who go to secondary schools who have not passed the level of primary 4 or 5. It is appalling that some secondary schools have jumped on the egalitarian nonsense that the Labour Party so often spouts in education debates. We have moved from mixed ability classes and common courses and put children into the normal stream who are incapable of coping. We have ignored the fact that in reality they have not done the work of primary 6 and 7. That does not happen in every school. Many schools have a remedial department, but that remedial department sometimes has to be fought for against the desire that children should go into mixed ability classes.

Mr. O'Neill: If the hon. Gentleman is so well briefed by the SSTA and all the other teaching unions, will he give us some examples to justify the arguments that he is advancing?

Mr. MacKay: I have personal knowledge. At the school in which I taught there was the problem of how many children could be put in the remedial department. There was pressure to keep as many children as possible in the mixed ability classes. The reduction of the role of the remedial department continued while mixed ability classes were considered to be the in thing. On many occasions I had considerable difficulty in trying to explain to a parent whose child had been given remedial help in primary school that he or she could not be sent to the remedial department of my school. Children in that position had to be pulled through the horror of trying to do mathematics in the mixed ability first year. I had to explain to the parents that I was sorry, but that the system worked in that way. It is a sad reflection on those responsible that we should let that happen within Scottish education.
It was fairly common that in S3 and S4 the remedial child would be put back in the main stream because the remedial department catered only for S1 and S2. I know that there are some authorities that try hard to avoid that happening, but this is one of the areas in which Scottish education has to try much harder. There are many children who go to secondary schools whose mental handicap and limited ability are not being properly catered for during their school career.
I turn to the group with which Mrs. Warnock's report is more concerned—children with both mental and physical handicaps. They are much more difficult to deal with, for a variety of reasons. There has been a misunderstanding of the Warnock report—namely, that Mrs. Warnock considers that such children should go to an ordinary school and be integrated in the classes of that school. It is an attempt to allow as many children to do that as possible, but it is a misunderstanding that they should all be integrated into ordinary schools. It would be a great pity if we were to go down that road. There are many good special schools that do a splendid job. It would be a great pity if they were closed and the children were moved to adjacent primary or secondary schools.
I have listened to many remarks about resources. One would think that no money was being spent on the handicapped. In my constituency, Strathclyde regional council has done some sterling work, and in Oban there is an extremely good school that caters for the handicapped. I find it hard to believe that putting handicapped children into ordinary schools would be advantageous compared with their current education provision, which is very good in every way.
I am not happy about the use of the word "record". The child will be given a record. The corresponding Bill for England does not use the word "record". The Undersecretary of State for Education and Science, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) said on 2 February:
Having a record is rather like helping the police with their inquiries. People who have a record are not necessarily the most famous old boys of a school."—[Official Report, 2 February 1981; Vol. 998, c. 96.]
It is a word with connotations, which we would do best to do without. I suggest to my hon. Friend that he should consider the English terminology, which uses the word "assessment".
In an article in The Times Educational Supplement on 5 December, Mrs. Warnock welcomed what was being done in these matters. I have no doubt that what she said will be contested by Opposition Members. She said:
Reactions have been amazingly predictable. Everyone complains that there will be no more money. Local authorities complain that there will be no monitoring quango for them to have seats on, teachers complain because their work will be harder, but no better paid. I find the general pessimism sad, and the outcome probably wasteful. The proposition that nothing is possible without the allocation of extra resources will render itself true. People will come to believe that nothing can be done on the grounds that not everything can be done.
However, Mrs. Warnock and others who have written about this matter welcome what is proposed.
I shall deal briefly with the assisted places and parents' charter schemes. It is only fair that I should say in this regard that I am not speaking on behalf of the SSTA.
I am fortunate. I stay in an area that has a good school. I am happy that my children go to it. However, if I lived in some other parts of Scotland, I should not take that view. It is interesting that when he stayed in Edinburgh the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) did not purchase a house in the catchment area of some of the lesser well-known and poorer schools in Edinburgh. Instead he made sure—perhaps by accident, perhaps by design—that he lived in the catchment area of a good school. That is one of the unfortunate options for parents in the city and urban areas of Scotland. If they are in a

catchment area of a school that they do not like, they move house. Everyone knows that. We see it from the advertisements in the papers. The factor in the proposals about parental choice should help to remove that.
The hon. Member for South Ayrshire could not decide whether to boast about the number of transfers allowed by Lothian region or to condemn anyone who wanted to move out of the zone. He talked about the demand for community schools, how essential they were and how everyone should go to them, but two or three minutes later he was boasting about the number of transfers.

Mr. Foulkes: I was not boasting about the number of transfers. Few of the 11,000 asked for a transfer, but of that number a high proportion were satisfied. If the hon. Member cannot understand that, he should be elsewhere.

Mr. MacKay: I understand that perfectly. Does the hon. Member approve of those transfers? If he accepts them and thinks that they are good, why does he oppose the Government's proposition to give parents the right—

Mr. Foulkes: Because it is unnecessary.

Mr. MacKay: I accept that the hon. Member is opposing it because it is unnecessary. I hope that my hon. Friend is listening to that. We look forward to the Opposition's not being obstructive to the clause in Committee because they agree with parental choice. They just do not think that it is necessary to have a Bill about it. That is interesting news.

Mr. Millan: That is not an odd view. Amongst other things, it happens to be the view of the SSTA, on whose behalf the hon. Gentleman purports to speak.

Mr. McKay: The right hon. Member is being unfair. I was not speaking on its behalf. Parental choice is an excellent thing, and I am glad that the Opposition approve of it. I am glad to hear that some hon. Members believe that my hon. Friend has made a legal definition that is too narrow. I am also concerned about that.
I now turn to the assisted places scheme. I wish to make two points of particular interest, not just to my constituency, but to many rural areas in Scotland. Some children can go to a local school whose parents would like to send them to an assisted places scheme, but cannot afford the boarding fees. I understand the Government's reluctance to move in that direction.
I wish to consider those children who will have to go away from home and board in a hostel at a local authority school. There are many such cases. I have heard of one in particular on one of the islands in my constituency. There is an overlaying problem in that the parent involved would prefer his child to have a Catholic secondary education—something of which I imagine the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) would approve. If his child goes to the local authority school and lives in hostel accomodation, he will not get that Catholic education because the school will be non-denominational.
My constituent will be eligible for the assisted places scheme, but, because that is so, he will not be able to afford the boarding fees. In any case, the boarding fees will have to be paid by Strathclyde region. In those circumstances, there is a case for considering that the boarding fees should be paid, even if the child goes outwith the State sector and comes within the assisted places scheme. That is important. Although the hostel


accommodation is splendid, some parents would feel happier about their children being in a boarding school when they have to go away from home than if they were in hostel accommodation with a separate day school.
I welcome the assisted places scheme, but I should like my hon. Friend to consider those parents whose children will have to go away from home, who could go to a private school and who could qualify for the assisted places scheme, but would find it impossible to take it up as the boarding fees are too expensive. I understand from what my right hon. Friend said that legal provision would be made if the parent decided to appeal to the sheriff. That is important.
I should like to make a brief point about the publication of information about a school to parents. At the moment, many schools are proud of their activities. They publish documents telling parents what they do—sports, orchestras, foreign trips, drama and so on. However, they never publish examination results. I do not understand why examination results are not just as important as those other activities. [Interruption.] I heard the word "Freedom of information". The publication of those results is important to parents, and also for the school. The recent ILEA inspectors' report made it clear that too many schools did not take into account their examination results when they considered their performance, what improvements they should make, their staffing and curriculum standards and so on. More schools could publish that information. They would be helped to do that if the parents knew about the results of the school. It is not true that parents do not know what is going on. They hear about it by rumour, which is not always true.
I should have been happy, during the years when I presented for examination O-grades, highers and certificates of sixth year studies for mathematics, to have the results published. My department would have been equally happy to see its results published. We were reasonably proud of them and thought that we did a reasonable job. I cannot understand why the teaching profession should be so opposed to parents finding out what the school does in relation to this important sphere of activity—O-grades and highers.
I am disappointed that my hon. Friend has not seen fit to do anything about the schools councils. A report about them by Glasgow university concluded that no meaningful role was given to them and that they would die. The Taylor report in England was welcomed by the then Secretary of State for Education, Mrs. Shirley Williams—if I dare mention her name without upsetting the Opposition. We should consider that report and the Glasgow university report. That way, we may round off the unifying concept of the Bill, which is to bring parents more into education, to give them choice of school for their children, to give those of limited means the choice of sending their children to private schools and to give the parents of handicapped children a choice. Choice runs throughout the Bill.
I should have been happier had we looked for a more meaningful role for parents on school councils. Nevertheless, I welcome the Bill. It gives parents an increased role. They are important. Every teacher that I know wants parents to take an interest in their children's education. When they decide that they would prefer their child to go to a different school, we cannot say "Stop there". We must accept that they may make choices that

are unpleasant for the bureaucrats and for the Labour Party. Parents are responsible for their children. It is important to give back to them some of that responsibility.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As a non-Scot, may I say that the debate has been enjoyable, but speeches lasting half an hour deny other hon. Members the opportunity to speak. Five other hon. Members have indicated their wish to take part in the debate. If speeches are limited to 10 minutes, they will all have a chance to speak.

Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Scotland has only a small number of Tory Members of Parliament, but they seem to believe that their speeches should take half an hour, but Labour Members seem to be restricted to making 10-minute speeches.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I did not wish to condemn the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) in my previous remarks. Hon. Members on the Opposition Benches have also made speeches that have taken a fair amount of time.

Mr. Henderson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Throughout most of the debate there have been as many hon. Members on the Government Benches as on the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I said that it had been an enjoyable debate. Let us keep it that way.

Mr. Ernie Ross: I shall try to be brief. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) is concerned about disadvantage. I shall give him other examples of disadvantage that the Bill does not deal with. I hope that he will join us tonight in voting against the Bill.
The legislation is an attempt by the Government to claim that they are doing something for Scottish education. Throughout Scotland there is a firm belief that the Government's education policies are destroying it. I have no doubt that the Under-Secretary of State responsible for education in Scotland believes that he is opening up a new era of educational opportunity and advance. However, it is a cosmetic measure that does nothing to tap the deep-rooted inequalities in Scottish education.
The inequalities should be highlighted so that we can see how superficial and irrelevant the measure is. Parents' rights in education go far beyond the mere selection of the school that their children should attend. Educational opportunity and success are firmly dependent on home background and the economic circumstances of the family. The right to work, to decent housing and to decent health provision all affect educational performance. They are not catered for in the Bill. The Minister is mistaken if he believes that the legislation will thaw any educational barriers. Scotland is deeply divided by class distinctions. That is borne out by educational research. Merely to tinker with the educational system will not break down the distinctions. Only a full-blooded, radical attack on the disadvantages and inequalities across the whole spectrum of the social services will do that.
I shall attempt to summarise recent important research surveys in Scotland on educational performance and social class. The Maxwell report inquired into the reading ability of Scottish children between the ages of eight and 15. At primary 4 level, neighbourhood conditions explained 44 per cent. of the differences in results between schools. By


primary 7 level, 68 per cent. of the differences in reading ability could be accounted for by factors such as unemployment and neighbourhood social conditions. Does the Minister seriously believe that transferring a child from an economically deprived background, in an area of educational disadvantage, to a school with primarily a middle-class intake will immeasurably improve his educational performance? The answer must be that it will not. The major findings of educational research over the past 15 years demonstrate clearly that it is the factors associated with the home and the environment and not those associated with school that determine educational success.
I go further. The sociology department of Aberdeen university four years ago undertook a Scottish mobility study, which examined the educational performance of about 4,000 male Scots over the past 60 years. Over 50 per cent. of the sons of upper middle-class families gained highers compared with only 5 per cent. of those from an unskilled working-class background. Four out of five manual workers' sons left school at the minimum age. Fewer sons of manual workers are staying on at school now than in the 1920s and 1930s. There is virtually no difference between the proportion of highers awarded to the sons of manual workers now and those awarded in the 1920s. It is little wonder that the study concluded:
the outcome of educational reform in Scotland has been to give further advantage to the sons of non-manual workers, and there is little evidence that the sons of manual workers are in any way catching up.
Will the legislation do anything to tackle that inequality? The answer is again "No".
I go even further. Recent research by the centre for educational sociology at Edinburgh university estimated the level of superiority of middle-class children's chances of reaching certain levels of educational success in Scotland. For any Scottish Certificate of Education exam pass the ratio is almost 3:1, in favour of middle-class children over working-class children. For gaining at least three highers it is 3:1, and for gaining entry to university it is 6:1.
I realise that the mention of the word "class" in the context of Scotland deeply offends hon. Members on the Government Benches and Members of the SNP such as the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), who, unfortunately, is not in the Chamber. He believes that the only class difference in Scotland is that which exists in railway carriages. Class differences do exist in Scotland. This parents' charter, or whatever fanciful name the Minister proposes to give the measure, does nothing to tackle the root causes of inequality in Scottish education. That is why I hope that the hon. Member for Argyll will join us in the Lobby tonight.
The assisted places scheme is a subsidy in disguise for the privileged private sector in education, which caters for only a tiny minority of pupils. It is being introduced at a time when State education is being throttled by public expenditure cuts. We can expect nothing else from this Government. However, I was astonished to read the Secretary of State's remarks to the young Tories' annual conference last November. He was quoted inThe Scotsman as saying:
Of course our overwhelming priority is the betterment of the comprehensive system where 95 percent. or more of our children are going to be educated.

How can he claim that when he is starving that system of funds and introducing a scheme to help the fee-paying sector of Scottish education, which the overwhelming majority of parents and teachers in Scotland regard as unjust and socially divisive? The Secretary of State is telling us that State education in Scotland is second rate, which is a slur on those who work in it and those who send their children to State schools.
The scheme has few friends in Scotland. It is opposed by the teaching unions. Its only supporters appear to be those Tories who detest the comprehensive system and the standards that it has achieved. They have a theory—"Fee paying schools, good; comprehensives, bad." To prove their theory they are trying to poach the best pupils that the comprehensive system produces and transfer them to the private sector They would deny the remaining pupils the chance to watch the progress of the successful pupils, who would have encouraged them to work harder. That displays the Tories' love of elitism and snobbery at its worst.
We have already seen the mentality that exists in those schools. I refer to the incident in my constituency, when Dundee high school began issuing preliminary application forms for the assisted places scheme before the Bill had been presented to Parliament. The form was one of the most detailed that I have ever seen. It stated that children should sit an entrance examination for Dundee high school. It should be for Parliament, not Dundee high school, to decide whether a child who attends the school by virtue of the assisted places scheme should sit an entrance examination.
I wish to thank my right hon. and hon. Friends who signed my early-day motion deploring that practice. They would be pleased to know that it was the subject of a major news item on BBC's "Reporting Scotland" the same evening that we tabled the motion. The glow from the red faces within Dundee high school lit up the night sky of Dundee for some nights afterwards. The scheme is a scandalous abuse of public money. It is a slur on the comprehensive system. It is an example of the Tories' traditional contempt for the real Scottish educational system. It deserves nothing but the outright rejection of the House.
The Secretary of State said that I should be thankful that pupils in Dundee high school who came from lower income families would benefit from his actions. I am more concerned about the comments made by Mr. Ian Mackie, the Tory leader of Tayside regional council, in The Scotsman on 6 February. The article states:
Councillor Mackie agreed yesterday that the region would be unable to fulfil their statutory obligations if they confined themselves to the expenditure guidelines of the Government.
When I sought to allay the fears of my constituents by tabling a written question today, the Minister replied:
Councillor Mackie called on me on 3 February while he was in London to discuss a number of matters of interest to Tayside regional council.
I made it clear in a letter to the Minister that if we discover that, because of the Government's policies, the Tayside regional council is not fulfilling its statutory obligations, I shall ask him to authorise Her Majesty's Inspectorate from the Scottish Education Department to investigate whether the council is fulfilling its statutory duties in Dundee, and demand that it does so.
I take great pleasure in saying that I shall vote against the Bill. It does nothing for education in Scotland. If the hon. Member for Argyll is sincere, he will join with us in the vote tonight.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: The Bill ignores the needs of the vast majority of children in Scottish schools. Parts of the Bill will do a great deal of damage to the Scottish education system—a system which appears to have been lurching from one crisis to another since the Minister at the Scottish Office with responsibility for education took office.
I agree with the principle of parental choice, but the scheme proposed by the Government is unnecessary, bureaucratic and expensive. The Bill refers to at least £100,000 expenditure in 1981–82, increasing to an annual sum of £300,000 in subsequent years. One clause in the Bill will make it easier to close schools. The victims probably will be schools in rural areas, some of which are in areas represented by Conservative Members. The new negotiating machinery for teachers' salaries will do little, if anything, to restore the morale of the teaching profession following last year's fiasco about salaries, especially at a time when the Government are allowing only 6 per cent. for wage increases in the rate support grant to local education authorities.
I said earlier that the Bill ignores the real needs of the vast majority of children in Scotland. The goodness or badness of an education Bill must be judged not on what it will do for parents, teachers and Ministers, but on the main criterion of what it will do for children. I shall devote most of my remarks to the effect of the Bill on two minority groups of children, and deal with the way in which the Government are treating one minority group as compared with the other.
The first minority group is children and young people with special educational needs. They were the subject of a study by the Warnock committee. The hallmark of any educational system that proclaims itself to be humane and just is that there is equality of educational opportunity. If we are to achieve that, most help should go to the children who need it most. I am sure that most hon. Members will agree that the children studied by the Warnock committee come into that category. That committee was established as long ago as November 1973. The Secretary of State for Education and Science at that time was none other than the present Prime Minister—the same Prime Minster who is heading a Government who are doing so little to help those children. The committee reported in 1978 with more than 200 recommendations. Eventually, in this, the International Year of Disabled People, the Government have brought forward proposals to take action on some of those recommendations. But the sad truth is that most of the recommendations have been ignored. The Bill is a pathetic response to Warnock and to the crying need to give more educational priority to children and young people with special educational needs.
Along with most hon. Members, I wish to give a general welcome to the abolition of the rigid system of categorisation of different forms of handicap, and its replacement with a new system based on an individual assessment, combined with a record for a child with special needs. There will be a general welcome for that proposal from educational circles outside the House. I accept what the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay)

said about nomenclature—one of the few remarks that I accepted in his speech. We should look for another word than "record". The new system appears to be based on a more child-centred approach, rather than on the old method of trying to pigeon-hole children into different categories.
Having given a general welcome to those legislative proposals, I should add that there are several major omissions. There is a failure to insist on assessment of the child by a truly multi-disciplinary team. The role of the teacher is relegated to a mere consultative capacity, yet specific reference is made to the role of the psychologist and to that of the doctor, and to medical and psychological examinations. The teacher should be brought more into the multi-disciplinary team to assess the child. The Bill also fails to provide more opportunity for an earlier school entry age and for a later school leaving age, which would benefit many of these children and young people.
The Government have failed to legislate for a named person who could become a contact point for the parents. Instead of being shoved from one office to another and from one specialist to another the parents would know that a "one-door" policy existed and that there was a named person to whom they could go for advice at any stage during the child's education.
The Bill also fails to set up an advisory body to promote research and development into children's educational needs. In addition, it fails to improve staffing standards in certain types of special schools, which were formerly called junior occupational centres and which cater for severely mentally handicapped children. As recently as 1975, those institutions were not called schools.
We should be ashamed of the fact that not until 1975 did we remove the stigma or label of "ineducable" from those children. In 1975 it was decided that henceforth those children would be called "educable", and that the institutions that catered for their education would be called "schools". We all know that, in itself, a change of labels does not necessarily mean an improvement in educational opportunity. It is sad that the former junior occupational centres are still exempt from the staffing provisions contained in the code that applies to other special schools.
At a time when we should be training more teachers so that we can improve the educational opportunity for such children along the lines of the Melville report, it is particularly tragic that the Government should propose to reduce teacher training facilities and to close down colleges of education. The most serious point is that insufficient resources are being provided for these Warnock children. The Bill makes no provision for additional resources. The Government pay hypocritical lip service to the Warnock report and to the International Year of Disabled People when they proclaim that they are doing something that will be of tremendous advantage to such children.
In 1979, when the Conservative Party came into office, one of the Government's first actions was to cut the education budget for Scotland, including a cut in the special education budget. The Bill does not provide a single extra penny for the education of these children. Earlier, I said that they were a minority. Only 2 per cent. of schoolchildren have pronounced, specific or complex educational needs. However, if we take into account those who at some stage in their educational life require some


specialist or remedial education, one in five of schoolchildren, or 20 percent. of the school population are involved.
The Government may claim that they cannot provide more resources for these children, because the educational system is in some way bankrupt, or because the Treasury is bankrupt. If they make that claim, how on earth can they find £3·5 million for an assisted places scheme? Indeed, that £3·5 million is only the initial amount. More money will probably be provided. It is most unfair to cut the amount of money being given to those most in need so that the Government can prop up private fee-paying schools that cater for fewer than 5 per cent. of the school population. That is a distorted sense of educational priorities. The Government seem to be depriving those with special educational needs while, at the same time, they are shovelling millions of pounds of public money into private, elitist, fee-paying schools, so that a tiny minority of parents can buy extra privilege—real or imaginary—by sending their children to them.
Soon after the Conservative Party took office grant aid for fee-paying schools was increased from about £900,000 to £2·3 million. That is an increase of about 150 per cent. Grant aid has been increased by about another 50 per cent. for this financial year. As a result, it now totals about £3.5 million. The Government are not only cutting expenditure in education, they are redistributing whatever expenditure is left. Instead of redistributing it in favour of those pupils and those schools that are most in need, they are doing the opposite. They are taking money away from deprived children to give it to the privileged few. It is Robin Hood in reverse. They are robbing the poor to give to the rich. They are robbing the underprivileged to give more to the over-privileged.
As other hon. Members have said, the effect of the assisted places scheme will be to reinforce the social divisions in Scotland. It is worth pointing out that 95 per cent. of parents appear to be perfectly happy for their children to attend local education authority schools. But the Government are implying that those schools are somehow inferior, and that the teachers who teach in them are somehow incapable of bringing the best out of the brightest children. That is to insult the teachers and the children in those schools. If there is any motivation at all behind this crazy scheme, it seems to be an attempt by the Government to reward a few Tory voters, their old school pals and the old boy network, especially in places such as Edinburgh.
It is interesting to read the provisional list of schools participating in the assisted places scheme. There are none in my constituency, but I think that my constituents in West Stirlingshire, whether or not they voted for me in the last general election, will deeply resent the fact that, while their children have to suffer the effects of cuts in education expenditure in local education authority schools they will at the same time have to subsidise the Edinburgh bourgeoisie who imagine that private fee-paying schools in Edinburgh are somehow superior to local education authority schools.
One has only to look at some of the products of the schools on the provisional list. One is Loretto school. That school was not grant-aided before. It was an independent school. Among its illustrious or infamous former pupils is the Solicitor-General for Scotland, whose name appears on

the cover of the Bill as one of the principal sponsors. What does the Solicitor-General for Scotland think about his old school? I have looked this up in "Who's Who". I should not like to be accused of misquoting, so I shall read out the entry, which I presume was submitted or at least approved by the hon. and learned Gentleman himself. It reads as follows:
Fairbairn of Fordell, Nicholas Hardwick… Baron of Fordell; born 24 December 1933"—
That must have been one hell of a Christmas for Mrs. Fairbairn. Here we come to the important part—
Educated: Loretto and Edinburgh University, educated in spite of both.
In other words, the Solicitor-General for Scotland, a former pupil of Loretto, clearly thinks that it is a rotten school. Yet he has put his name to a Bill which will give public money to Loretto school to enable more children to suffer the severe educational disadvantage that he suffered as a result of going to that school.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is this a personal attack?

Mr. Douglas: No, it is too mild.

Mr. Canavan: I must point out, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I left a note for the Solicitor-General for Scotland saying that I intended to mention this during the debate. Unfortunately, however, despite the fact that his name appears on the Bill, he has not appeared throughout the debate. It seems that if there is one thing that Loretto school does teach its pupils, it is truancy. That is another reason for not giving it any public money.
Among the other schools, there is George Heriot's school which the Solicitor-General for Scotland's pal, the Lord Advocate, attended. There is George Watson's college, which produced the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) and the Secretary of State's messenger boy, the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Mr. Corrie), who is not present today, either. I notice that Glasgow Academy is also on the list. That was the school of the substitute messenger boy, the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Pollock).

Mr. Alex Pollock: Will the hon. Gentleman explain to the House the reasoning behind the decision of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) to take up his first teaching post—in history, rugby and ethics—at that school?

Mr. Canavan: That is a question which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) is best qualified to answer. However, in these days when the Secretary of State is chopping back on the number of teaching jobs, I would imagine that some teachers would be glad to get a job anywhere.
If I had more time, I could say more about the educational records of some Conservative Members. Many of them however, including the Secretary of State himself, were exported to English fee-paying schools for most of their education.
The list of these schools reminds me of a line of old school tie scroungers, queueing up with their begging bowls at the door of their Ministerial pals demanding that their old boys dish out more public money to bolster up their educational system. That system has produced many of the people who are now hell bent on destroying the Scottish educational system and are trying to reinforce the class divisions which currently exist in Scotland. This


whole scheme is absolutely unjustifiable on educational, moral and financial grounds. I hope that all of my hon. Friends and perhaps even some Conservative Members will vote against this vicious measure.
We would like to make it crystal clear that after the next general election, when we have a massive Labour majority in this place, one of our first priorities will be to get rid of the assisted places scheme and to abolish privilege once and for all from our educational system with the same ruthless determination as the Tories try to prop it up.

Mr. Peter Fraser: My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) may have been criticised for speaking at some length, but all 30 minutes of his speech had a lot more relevance to the Bill than the last five minutes of the speech of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan).
The line of opposition adopted by the Labour Party is the same tired and obvious ploy which it used in respect of the other two items of major legislation which the Government have brought forward. On the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act, they studiously ignored and underplayed the social importance to Scotland of the tenants' charter, which they knew perfectly well provided new and welcome safeguards, not for owner-occupiers but for council tenants.
During discussions on the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act, they uncritically associated themselves with the "Stop the Bill" campaign, although again they knew perfectly well that had their own Government survived just a month of two more most of the proposals contained in it would have been enacted.
Now that we are discussing this Bill, the parents' charter is studiously ignored. The provisions for special educational needs of some children, along the lines recommended in Warnock, are underplayed. The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire ought to have paid more attention to what Mrs. Warnock had to say about the implementation of those proposals in this Bill.
I unhesitatingly welcome the provisions in the Bill. I hope that in Scotland it will be remembered how much in previous legislation the attempt was made to distort what was included. I hope that it will be realised that the same attempt is being made on this occasion.
The provisions of clause 1 relating to placings in schools are not, I tend to agree, wholly required in every region in Scotland. As the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) acknowledged, my own education authority in Tayside already operates a flexible and sensible scheme for those parents who wish to have their children educated at other schools. Possibly it is not necessary for me to repeat this, but that same responsive approach has been singularly lacking in our capital city of Edinburgh.
Labour Members frequently enjoy taking the mickey out of Conservative Members who have earned their living at the Bar. For a while, I made a very good living out of representing the interests of those tenants who found that they were reacting to a wholly unresponsive education authority.
What surprises me most about the opposition to the Bill is resistance to the idea that education authorities should be required to supply information regarding any school under their management. At present, it seems quite acceptable and is frequently the case, even in the House, to judge and even to pillory an education authority on the

basis of its crude expenditure on education. There might be some sense in that approach if the statistic used was expenditure per pupil. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) and his hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), who I am sorry to see has left the Chamber, have both used in the past the statistic of expenditure, not per pupil but per head of population. That seems to me absurd. Anyone who knows anything about Scotland appreciates that the proportion of schoolchildren as part of the total population varies enormously in different regions.
This attack has been frequently used, especially against Tayside region. If we are to use those arguments and play that game, it is interesting to see what comes out of the statistics from the rate review last year. Tayside spends £348 per pupil on teaching staff. That is well above the average and far more than the £313 that Strathclyde spends per pupil on teaching staff. On non-teaching staff, Tayside spends the average while Strathclyde manages to spend nearly double. What parents want to know is how their children will get on at school.
I do not believe that if parents in any part of Scotland were told that this education authority spends £348 per pupil on teaching staff while that spends £313 they would have any idea whether this represented excessive expenditure or a serious underspending on this vital issue. I should have thought that the more vital figure and the more vital approach would be the type of educational information that parents can understand. For example, more children leave school in Tayside with three or more highers than in any other region of Scotland. At the same time, fewer than the national average leave school with no qualification at all. Within Tayside, one has a better chance of being educated better than in any other region in Scotland.
If it is legitimate to examine these figures on a regional or a national basis, it is surely logical and sensible to give information to parents on what happens in the region and what happens in individual schools. Opposition Members have been at pains to say that educational establishments in Scotland are opposed to the Bill. The factor that they have attempted to avoid facing is that organisations such as the Scottish Consumer Council have given a very warm welcome to a number of provisions in the Bill. The council says:
We see the provision of information for parents as the cornerstone of the government's commitment to a 'parents' charter, and greatly welcome key clauses in the bill requiring education authorities to publish details about their admission arrangements …
If the charge of elitism is made against the Government, it seems extraordinary that the whole attitude of the Opposition is that it is legitimate for the educational establishments to pass opinions but that if parents deign to intervene and to ask questions this passes out of the area of legitimate concern and becomes a matter that they should never be told about.
The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire made the point that, because we wish to introduce an assisted places scheme, we are playing down the value and the contribution of State education. He seemed to relate that proposition, if I understood him correctly, to the belief that the provision of information might incite a movement of musical chairs from one school to another. I do not believe for a moment that that will be the effect. I accept that about 80 per cent. of parents are satisfied with the education of


their children at a particular school, but more than 80 per cent. believe that they should at least have a choice, the right to know about the school, and be given the opportunity to move their children from it if necessary.
In my constituency there is a high school in Arbroath, about which I have pestered and will continue to pester the Minister on the replacement of the school building. One of the problems with which we were faced was that there was so little information about the educational facilities within the admittedly inadequate building that children were beginning to drift away. Once we had collected information on that school in the form of a prospectus the movement away from it was prevented.
I ask the Under-Secretary of State to consider the fact that from time to time children are just under the age at which they are required to be admitted to schools. If it is a matter of days or weeks, a number of education authorities try to introduce a flexibility into the arrangements, and permit the children to enter school before the required age. However, some people in educational establishments feel that they know better, and they say that in no circumstances should children be taken into school before the required age. Subject to the qualifications in clause 1(3)(b), if an education authority can admit a child to school before the required age, a greater educational opportunity will be given to that child.
I re-echo the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll on assisted places. The arguments have been discussed at length. I support my hon. Friend on the issue of boarding fees being included within the assisted places scheme where, in any event, the local education authority would have to educate the child away from home. That would be a useful extension to the scheme but, at the same time, it would not be solely for the benefit of some public schools in Edinburgh, to which Labour Members so fervently object. I hope that we shall be able to discuss that matter in Committee but that the assisted places scheme, as set out in the Bill, emerges from Committee intact.

Mr. Jim Craigen: I do not envisage that the Bill will do very much for the coming generation of young Scots. Having listened to some of the speeches, one realises that its conception owes much to the ideological hang-up that still exists on the Government Benches in terms of promoting independent schools.
I wish to concentrate on three aspects of the Bill. The first concerns assisted places. It is a pity that the Government have not thought it worthy to regard all young Scots as being eligible for assisted places, by strengthening community schools throughout the country and by raising the quality of these State schools. There will be a misdirection of the current educational funding.
The Minister responsible for education in Scotland is in a unique position. He has at his disposal far more resources in terms of teaching staff than any previous Minister. In the 1960s and 1970s the main problem in the community schools was a shortage of teachers, not least in specialist subjects. I hope that the Minister will not seek to squander the tremendous asset that he has at his disposal, because the success of the schools is to be judged by more than mere SCE examination results. Youngsters spend a great deal of time in primary and secondary

schools, and it is important that they should take away with them more than their certificates alone. Unfortunately, not enough of them take away certificates, but I am suggesting that school is more than a place in which only certification should count.
With regard to the illusion of parental choice, there is no suggestion that extra resources will be made available to the parents. Indeed, the previous Bill, the Education (Scotland) (No. 1) Bill, deliberately sought to reduce the financial resources available to parents by savaging the ability of local authorities to deliver services. In most inner urban areas—and in quite a number of rural areas—the problem of school closures will overhang the educational situation, and not only because of the decline in the number of pupils. It seems that there will be even more difficulties in terms of planning courses, timetabling and staffing arrangements, and one visualises that a lot of Portakabins will be required for all the movement that will exist between the popular and the unpopular schools—that is, if parents have the resources to pay for their youngsters to go to the popular schools.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) referred to the appeals machinery that exists in Strathclyde where, as I was able to find, there were about 3,700 applications for exceptional transfers, of which about 3,400 were granted. There may well be a need to improve the appeals machinery, but here we have a Government who despise quangos. So what do they seek to do? They seek to have superimposed public authority non-governmental organisations. We might call them "spangos". They will be mushrooming from Gretna Green to Sullom Voe. No doubt they will require clerks and administration, and will be a very costly aspect of education.
Reference has been made to the fact that the sheriff will be involved. I wonder how many sheriffs will have adequate knowledge of community schools, because they are, in the nature of things, drawn from a select element in the community.
But the third and most serious omission from the Bill relates to the 16 to 19 age group. The Secretary of State said this afternoon that he did not have much to say about that group. If I may say so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he did not have very much to say about anything this afternoon, but the absence of hope for the 16 to 19 age group is particularly galling.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) drew attention to the de-motivation that exists in many of our schools. The most serious problem facing a lot of youngsters is the absence of employment opportunity when they leave school. Although more than two-fifths of them leave school with no qualifications, many youngsters who leave school with qualifications are finding it extremely difficult to obtain employment.
It may well be that decisions will be taken later on in respect of the Munn and Dunning reports. The Scottish Office published a little leaflet entitled "The Government's Development Programme—The Munn and Dunning Reports: A Progress Report". When one examines the document in detail, one sees that it appears to be all cover and little content. When I asked the Secretary of State a question about introducing, on an experimental basis in Strathclyde region, maintenance allowances so that youngsters could stay at school after 16 without financial worries, he refused to consider the proposition. But that would seem to be a necessary step


at a time when we know that almost one school leaver in three will require a place in the youth opportunities programme.
I have no doubt that the Scottish Select Committee, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), will be able to examine this important issue of youth unemployment. But there must be a greater bridge between the secondary schools and the further education colleges. It struck me that the Secretary of State intends to draw on some of the initiatives that the last Government started, but I wish that he had spelt out in greater detail what he had in mind. Next year we shall see the beginning of a sharp drop in the number of 16-year-olds. The Government are uniquely placed. There will be a drop in the number of school leavers over the next decade, and there will be corresponding demand for places in further education colleges.
Coming back to the point that was made earlier about provision for the disabled, I hope that the Secretary of State will bear in mind the problem that is now developing in respect of the mentally handicapped, where parents whose youngsters are reaching 16—because of medical advance they are living longer—are now worried about what happens to their children after the age of 16. Are they to stay at home, or are they to be institutionalised? I hope that the Secretary of State, in this of all years, will respond to that difficulty.
I see the Bill as a spurious and shoddy piece of legislation which will do little for Scotland's young people today, and will certainly not prepare them for the world of tomorrow. Despite what has been said about some of the bureaucracies, the zoning and other arrangements will provoke a shambles in the administration of Scottish education over the coming years.

Mr. Barry Henderson: Unlike the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen), I welcome the Bill as an extremely useful and practical measure. There is one matter on which there is universal agreement, and that is that the university courts of the universities of St. Andrew's, Glasgow and Aberdeen will now have the right to appoint their own principals. As one of those universities is situated in my constituency, I believe that this provision will be warmly welcomed, despite the maintenance by the Opposition, when in Government, of the Royal Prerogative of the past.
Clauses 1 and 2, which relate to parental choice, would not be necessary if all regional councils acted like the best regional councils. It is a matter for regret that these clauses are necessary. After a number of years of pressure, Fife regional council, for example, has introduced a useful and remarkably successful measure of parental choice in primary schools. For some time I have asked it to extend the scheme more rapidly in the secondary schools. The Bill will ensure that parents have the rights to which they are entitled. Fife regional council is now beginning to realise that it is a useful measure.
The special educational needs part of the Bill is of particular value. Opposition Members have talked about finance for particular proposals in the Bill. Nobody will disagree that the Government's measures in relation to the Warnock report are first class. The only query that the Opposition raised in that respect was about finance. My right hon. Friend said that the scheme would be financed

primarily under the rate support grant formula, but we should not forget that Mrs. Warnock argued that a great deal could be done which did not necessarily require finance.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider the possibility of stressing in the Bill the duty of an education authority to provide education for children with special needs as soon as the needs are discovered and assessed. We should not wait until such children start their school careers. That is a recommendation of the National Deaf Children's Society. The suggestion applies in particular to deaf children.

Mr. David Myles: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, because this might be the only way in which I can make my point tonight. I wish to refer to deafness and the removal of categorisation. I am slightly worried, because deafness is invisible. Sometimes deafness is mistaken for a mental disability. Sometimes I am thought to be stupid rather than deaf. Does my hon. Friend agree that deafness should be named, in order to remove the stigma?

Mr. Henderson: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have noticed that important point, which is made with knowledge and experience of that disability.
At the risk of my reputation, I must say that I agree with the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) on one matter. I agree with his proposition that a named person should handle the cases of children with special educational needs. One of the problems of bureaucracy is knowing where to start and how to tackle it. That suggestion would not impose a serious burden on the education authorities, and would be of immense benefit.
With all the many reorganisations and multi-million pounds that have been put into the education system in the last 20 years, it is still a cause for anxiety that the proportion of pupils leaving school without any educational qualification is disturbingly and persistently high. Anything that we can do to reduce that will be good for the children and help their employment prospects.

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: The debate has been wide-ranging perhaps because of the generosity of the Chair. We heard an Adjournment-type speech from the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Lang) about the problems in his area. The debate has been restricted by the Bill's content because it deals with little that is relevant to Scottish education. Because of the ingenuity of my right hon. and hon. Friends, we have been able to discuss the important issues that affect education. We regret that an issue, which should be the subject of wide concern throughout the country, will be hindered by the almost unintelligible form in which the legislation has appeared. In Committee we shall endeavour to make the Bill appear clearer and more honest to the general public.
Much has been made of the parents' charter as a new extension of parental freedom which will, somehow, transform our education system. The message of the 1979 Tory manifesto was to the effect that by extending parental rights and responsibilities, and by giving parents a greater influence in education, there would be an improvement in the education system. From what we have heard today, the


secret of Tory education policy seems to be to give parents more rights and somehow educational standards will improve. It is not books, money or resources, but parents' rights which will improve the education system.
It has been argued that some local authorities have not been fulfilling their requirements or allowing the transfer of children from one school to another. My right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) and I approached four authorities in Strathclyde, Lothian, Fife and Central. We took Labour authorities because we felt that, in the Government's view, Conservative authorities would be beyond reproach. In 1980, in Strathclyde, out of 3,700 requests, 3,370 were granted and 334 refused. Lothian, the bete noir of the Tory Party in Scotland, had 391 requests of which 265 were granted and 126 were refused. In the Central region, my own region, there were 300 requests of which 226 were granted and 74 were refused. In 1980 Fife had 88 requests of which 78 were granted and 10 were refused. About 97 per cent. of all placements in the four regions were accepted without appeal.
However, the Minister is so determined to give all parents the right of appeal to move their children that he is setting up a vast bureaucracy to provide information and to afford leave to appeal.
Will the Minister tell us how he proposes to operate the legal aid system, which is not in the Bill? We have looked in vain through the Bill and have found no reference. It may be in the regulations. I hope that he will explain that when he replies. It came to light only today that legal aid would be provided.
Most of the provisions concerning the parental charter are largely irrelevant as most schools now have prospectuses, which are revised annually and include details of the range of courses, the content, the choice, the school facilities, the clubs and the societies. In short, they are an attempt to encapsulate what the school offers. In most cases they tell us a great deal more about the school than we can find in the Public and Preparatory Schools Year Book or the Independent Schools Association Year Book which give details of fee-paying schools in the form of a prospectus.
Common to both the public and the private sector is that none of the publications mentions examination results. If it is not felt necessary to make exam pass figures available in the standard directories of fee-paying schools, why should it be obligatory for local authority schools? Is it because many of the so-called better schools which give wider opportunities would be "done" under the Trade Descriptions Act if they had to come clean about the real state of their so-called academic standards?
Notwithstanding that, will the Minister be more specific about what he will require in the way of pass rate figures? Will it be simply the number of passes or the number of passes against presentations? Will it be the numbers who get C, B or A grades at O level? Will it include those who receive certificates, but who have failed to achieve over 50 per cent. and are awarded D and E grades? Will it be the number presented against the rest of the year population? Will it encompass matters such as the CSE mode 3 courses that are offered in Lothian and other areas? Will it reflect different approaches to presentation within a school? In some departments head

teachers will allow only those who will definitely pass to sit an exam, while others say that it is sufficient for a pupil to complete a course and submit himself to presentation.
Those are the sort of questions to which teachers and parents are entitled to know the answers. If the regulations and guidelines are to be all-embracing, it will be an incredibly complicated system. As well as differences within schools, there are different types of schools. I choose as examples two local authority schools in the Under-Secretary's constituency—Drummond high school, a former junior secondary, and Broughton high school, an old-style high school, which has moved into a new building, opposite Fettes college, and is arguably one of the best equipped schools in Scotland.
The Broughton school covers areas such as the new town and the middle class housing estates such as Craigleith. On the other hand, Drummond looks to the inner urban area where there are housing problems, higher unemployment and greater social problems. It is in an outdated building and is fighting for its existence, but it has a wide range of community-related activities, has specialised in work with immigrant ethnic groups and is steadily improving the academic side of its work.
Would it be possible for the tidy-minded bookkeeper in St. Andrew's House, the education Minister, to construct a league table to cover that range of variables? The differences are impossible to quantify in the way that the Minister would like. He knows that. Even organisations such as the SSTA—I see that their paid hack is not present, perhaps he is ashamed of being unable to take his money—

Mr. Henderson: There are many sponsored trade union members who do not have such remarks made to them. My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) is a member of a trade union and declared that fact when he spoke. It is no disgrace to be a member of a trade union. My hon. Friend is neither paid nor a hack.

Mr. O'Neill: The hon. Member for Fife (Mr. Henderson) knows as much about trade unionism as he does about education. The hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) spent his time discussing the policies of the SSTA. [Hon. Members: "Withdraw."] I will not withdraw. The hon. Gentleman gave a disgraceful peformance. He has returned to the Chamber and I am pleased to repeat that in his speech, tactfully or untactfully and in a hack-like manner, he ignored the evidence of his own union.

Mr. John MacKay: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my speech, he would have heard me emphasise that I am an honorary adviser. I get no payment. I would not have taken payment if the union had offered it. It did not offer payment. I get nothing from the union. If the hon. Gentleman said that I did, will he withdraw?

Mr. O'Neill: I withdraw my reference to the hon. Gentleman. He is an unpaid hack of the trade union.
I should like to quote the part of the SSTA briefing that was not referred to by the hon. Member for Argyll. The association stated:
schools often achieve good or bad reputations on the basis of no more than fad or whim or rumour. A minor matter giving rise to unfavourable publicity may commence a vicious circle which causes a school to acquire an entirely undeserved bad reputation; similarly, the accident of a particularly clever pupil's obtaining some national recognition or the avid use of the media by a publicity conscious head teacher may lead to a school's acquiring an undeserved good reputation.


That is the view of a union which is not particularly known for its progressive views. In this instance, it has hit the nail on the head in regard to parental choice.
Everybody is an expert on education, because everybody went to school, but we shall find that parents will seek to use the league tables to justify their actions. Instead of its being a parents' charter, it will be a moaners' manifesto and a small, snobbish minority will take their children away from schools, thus jeopardising their very existence, regardless of the quality of buildings concerned, the effect on staffing levels or the general morale of the school. That could lead to the creation of junior secondary schools—something which we thought we had seen the end of in Scotland many years ago.
By allowing parents the right to appeal to a sheriff against the decision of a local authority, as the charter provides, we shall find legal rather than educational considerations taking priority. We shall try in Committee to have all the appeals referred to the Secretary of State. We shall at least have the opportunity to take educational considerations into account.
The Government propose to set up a system and somehow parents will take a greater interest and standards in education will improve. Reference was made earlier by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) to the 11,000 pupils who were sent to Lothian schools from primary to secondary school and the 391 requests which were made for the children to go to other schools. Of the people who had appeals heard, only 126 were not satisfied; about 1 per cent. were disappointed. The Minister is trying to tell us that within this grouping of 126 parents will lie the salvation of Scottish education, that by satisfying the 126 who were not satisfied by Lothian region our education system will be transformed. The Minister knows that this is nonsense. I think that this parental charter is a sham, and simply appeals to the worst instincts of Tory voters. We shall take every opportunity to undermine it in Committee.
On the Warnock report, it was probably in this area that the Government could have got most support from the Opposition. Unfortunately, once again they have missed the opportunity. Certainly the biggest single omission is the failure to provide the resources to cater for the expansion of special education which the report envisages. There are three areas of priority which were included in the Warnock report about which very little mention is made: provision for children under five with special educational needs; provision for young people over 16 with special needs; and teacher training.
At a time when the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) is hell-bent on closing colleges of education, here is a God-given opportunity for him to find something to do with the colleges where he regards the numbers of students as being too small. These were the three priorities above all else that the Warnock report requested. We shall not seek to approach this area in a partisan way, but we shall seek to get financial backing for the Government's resolve. We should like to see greater involvement by teachers in the preparation of reports. We should like pre-school children to be given clearer vetting and better consideration.
We believe that as far as possible it should be the responsibility of the local authorities to provide the necessary care and we are concerned by the proposal which will give parents the right to ask that their children be sent to a grant-aided or independent school with a right

of appeal. We want to ensure that where local authorities have these provisions available they are made the fullest use of.
We support those Members on the Government Benches who made reference to the desirability of appointing a named person. We hope that the widespread concern about this question in the House today will persuade the Minister to look again at that. We hope that it would be a good starting point for a concession. We hope also that we can come back to the question of list D schools and the problems of children with special educational needs.
I echo the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) that no provision has been made for transitional arrangements for young people at 16. The problems of young people leaving care after 11 years and being thrown into the world is something which many of us believe to be of paramount importance. We think that the Minister must, in the International Year of Disabled People, find money for this particular group who probably above all are the ones most at risk at this moment.
The area which is probably most controversial is that of the assisted places scheme. We should like the Under-secretary of State to be a little clearer in his mind than was the Secretary of State as to whether the ability of the pupils will be the criterion for acceptance into the schools in the scheme. The Tory manifesto said that grant-aided schools gave wider opportunities for bright children. That reference to bright children tends to suggest that less able children will not be included in the scheme. We give notice that, as soon as we are back in power, we shall discontinue the scheme, and this will be the first step towards the elimination of any State funding for private education either by rate relief or by privileges presently enjoyed under the so-called charitable status. We also hope at that time to end the income tax relief for parents.
This scheme is half-baked. It rests on the premise that independent schools are somehow better than State schools. The election manifesto spoke of giving wider opportunities to bright children from modest backgrounds. If these schools are so good, there is a case for giving less able children a chance as well. The Minister should be specific on this and let us know what is happening.
As the geographical spread of these institutions is uneven, the effect of the scheme will be felt more severely in some areas than in others. Once again, Edinburgh seems to be the target for the Government's policy. There are 14 schools in Edinburgh, 14 schools in the whole of Strathclyde, six on Tayside, one in Highland, three in Grampian, one in Central, one in Dumfries and Galloway, and one in Fife. As the size of the schools varies and the location will not necessarily be convenient for all who want to go to to them, this system is basically unfair from the start. It is a cruel deception being played on the people who were foolish enough to vote for the Government in the expectation that something like this would be created. The concentration of numbers in particular areas will have the effect of creaming off many of the more able pupils. At a time of falling school rolls, this will further exacerbate the opportunities for the children in the State system, and will prevent them from having a wider range of senior school options.
It has been suggested that the scheme in the first year will cost about £800,000 and will rise to in excess of £5 million. When it is taken into account that aid to the


private sector has already risen from £1 million to about £3·4 million, it is easy to understand the bitterness that this scheme arouses in the rest of the school system in Scotland. It had been suggested that the proposal is not even popular with the schools themselves, and that they would rather have the money under the old system to deal with as they wish.
We regard this system as an affront to Scottish education and no more than an attempt to appease ill-informed parents who feel that there must be something better than the local school. My concern is for the children who go to those schools and discover that they will be second class citizens, denied the right of membership of clubs, societies, and activities for which payment must be made. The question of school uniform arises and the provisions of the proposed section 75B are all too vague. There is no great commitment to ensuring that the young people who go to these schools will get the necessary resources to play a full part in the school.
While I appreciate that the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North, went to a local authority school, far too many of his colleagues are totally ignorant of our system because the only time they have been in Scottish schools is on polling day when they have gone to vote. It would perhaps do some hon. Members on the Government Benches good to spend some time in the State system that they spend so much time denigrating.
To go on to look at the miscellaneous provisions, clause 14 is probably the most complicated clause, and the hon. Member for Argyll read out the provisions very fully. This must be looked at in Committee and the question of salaries and conditions must be considered in some detail, but not in the House this evening.
The status of non-denominational school closures is an issue that has caused a great deal of concern. We should like to see equality of treatment between the two communities. We hope that the Minister will reconsider the vexed issue of closures. We are especially concerned, at a time when rolls are falling and resources are scarce, that an unscrupulous authority will take advantage of these circumstances to close schools indiscriminately. We ask the Minister to think again and to amend the clause or withdraw it so that both communities in Scotland can be treated equally.
The Bill is at best an irrelevance and at worst a cruel deception. We recognise that there is always a need for tidying-up legislation, but there is nothing of any substance in the Bill that will give any hope to those who care about Scottish education.
The Secretary of State is without a friend for his assisted places scheme. Professional organisations such as the Educational Institute of Scotland, the NAS/AWT, the Scottish School Teachers Association and the headmasters' Association are all against it. They regard it as a slight against their members who work in the State sector. They reject the notion that in some way local authority schools are inferior to fee-paying institutions. They resent a scheme that will mean that resources that could be used to improve the lot of the great mass of Scottish young people will be diverted to help a privileged and pampered few.
The professional organisations find it incomprehensible that low pupil-teacher ratios should be desirable in private schools but should be regarded as not necessary in local

authority schools. Equally despicable is the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has tried to dress up the wretched assisted places scheme as mutton dressed as lamb. The clever children of the deserving poor will be allowed to go to fee-paying schools provided that they do not live too far away and if they are prepared to put up with the ignominy of being second-class citizens who are not able to participate in activities such as music lessons, the skiing trips, the continental holidays and all the other activities that are advertised in the brochures as being a desirable part of the education that the schools can provide, when there is no likelihood of financial support being given to enable them to take part.
Is the Minister aware of the problems that he is creating? No one wants the scheme. The schools do not want it. They would rather have the money in the form in which they used to have it, but we shall not necessarily give it to them in that way when we are in Government.
After the next general election the financial support will go. There will be difficult conditions in State schools, and apart from the cuts in staffing and resources and the working of clauses 1 and 2, which will result in havoc being created, we shall find that the more able children will be creamed off to the fee-paying sector. The socially ambitious will be taking their children away from the more difficult schools to the lusher pastures of surburbia where the catchment areas are better. The effect on teaching morale of these measures will be disastrous. We shall be back to the worst days of the old junior secondaries.
The detailed regulations that will ensue from the working of the parental charter—appeals to the sheriff, the complicated procedures of the law and problems with the legal profession—will create a bureaucratic warren far worse than that which now exists. There will be neither consistency nor fairness in the application of the law as envisaged in the Bill.
In the main, local authorities have schemes that satisfy most parents. They afford reasonable means of dealing with requests for children to be moved from one school to another. The league tables by their simplicity will merely serve to confuse the issue.
In many respects the least controversial aspect of the Bill, that dealing with special education needs, is the most disappointing. In the International Year of Disabled People it is utter hypocrisy for the Government to deny funds for the implementation of even part of the Warnock report.
We thought that somewhere in St. Andrew's House there was someone prepared to make a stand against the Treasury, but it seems that the cowardice that has categorised the political performance of Ministers since they came to St. Andrew's House is being carried through in this area. In their treatment of the young and the disabled, the Government have been most cruel and heartless in their deception. After food and shelter, education is the greatest need of the young. The Bill, with the rest of the Government's measures, will result in no remission the despair and misery which parents in Scotland feel about their children's future. For those reasons, I have no difficulty in calling my hon. Friends to join me in the Lobby in opposing the Bill.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): I was disappointed at the reaction of the Opposition to the Bill presented by my right hon.


Friend. It is not surprising that they oppose the Bill and that they feel strongly about certain aspects of it. However, it seems to me, from most of the speeches made by Opposition Members, that they oppose the Bill for purely doctrinal reasons, and have not attempted to read the Bill and try to understand its proposals. I accept that, in view of the Renton committee proposals, the drafting of the Bill makes it a little more difficult to read than a normal Bill. However, it is a most important piece of legislation.
The Bill concerns many aspects of education—not simply the assisted places scheme, which, important though it is, deals with a relatively small proportion of the population. Parts of the Bill deal with Warnock and parental choice. Surely the interests and desires of parents in sending their children to school are of prime importance, not just to the parents and the children, but to the education system. No organisation and no system can prosper and survive unless the wishes of the consumers—in this case the parents and children—are taken into account, not just in the schools, by school teachers, but by those who administer education, and by education authorities.

Mr. Robert Hughes: As a Socialist and an egalitarian, and as someone who believes that the rights of the child are paramount, I believe that the widest possible parental choice should be exercised within the State system, given that there must always be limitations of practicality and space. The Bill does not provide for progress in this area. Schemes could be produced far better than this one, with proper parental choice. This is a mouse of a Bill. For that reason, I oppose it.

Mr. Fletcher: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join the Committee on the Bill, because we do not pretend for a moment that we have all the answers to the improvement of parental choice. If he joins the Committee and wants to expand the opportunities for parents to be involved in their children's education, we would be delighted.
When I listened to the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. O'Neill), it was disappointing to hear the concentration in his speech—and in most other speeches—on the assisted places scheme. As my right hon. Friend said, there is no need to introduce the Bill simply to change the grant aid system for the assisted places scheme. My right hon. Friend already has legislation which has been on the statute book for many years which, through the introduction of regulations, enables us to transfer the grant aided scheme to the assisted places scheme. As he told the House, that is what we propose to do.
The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire went further than most of his colleagues when he used the expression "the deserving poor", when talking about grant aided and independent schools. He took delight in pointing out that many Conservative Members had gone not to local authority schools but to fee-paying schools.
In the interests of fairness, I point out that a number of hon. Members on the Opposition Benches did not go to local authority schools.
The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) went to Ampleforth. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) went to Eton. The hon. Members for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and for

Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) went to Glasgow Academy, which few of my hon. Friends could afford. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes), who is most reluctant to own up to his old school, went to Haberdashers' Aske school. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) is not in the Chamber. To beat it all, he went to Lord Williams' grammar school, which is very appropriate.

Mr. Foulkes: Surely the acid test is not where we went to school but where we send our children. That shows our view on parental choice.

Mr. Fletcher: Shall I produce that list? No. There has been enough embarrassment on the Opposition Benches this evening. I shall leave that list for now. There will be ample opportunity to use it in Committee.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fletcher: No, not again.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire on his first appearance on the Front Bench in these debates. We wish him well. I am sorry that he, as a young family man, has so little interest in parental choice, to judge from his remarks. Is he one of the privileged people in Edinburgh who can afford to buy a house in a catchment zone to suit his requirements? That is the privileged way in which choice is exercised under the rigid catchment zone system that he and his hon. Friends warmly support.

Mr. Douglas: That is the market.

Mr. Fletcher: It is not the market in education. It is the market in housing. That is why we have little respect for that system.

Mr. Douglas: It may be a distortion of the market but it is the market. If a league table was produced, we should find that house prices in the areas where the better schools are situated would rise. It is a distortion of the market produced by a distortion of education.

Mr. Fletcher: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the facts and the purpose of the Bill. We wish to put an end to rigid catchment zones so that people do not have to buy a house—if they can afford to do so—in the area in which they wish their children to go to school. By providing assisted places in independent schools we are taking that financial consideration out of the issue. That is why the Bill is important.
The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) seemed to say that the Bill should be opposed simply because it does not help school leavers to find jobs. However, especially at a time of recession, the quality of education must continue to improve, which is what we are seeking to achieve. By introducing choice and increasing parental interest we can also improve the motivation of teachers, which is important if we are to have a sound, viable and improving educational system.
My right hon. Friend outlined the improvements that are under way not only in this legislation but in the Munn and Dunning reports, which do not require statutory provisions. However, those reports gathered dust on the shelves under the previous Government, who had neither the wit nor the will to bring forward proposals to implement the recommendations. The Bill covers the areas where legislation is required to improve the education system.
The right hon. Member for Craigton criticised the provision for parental choice. I do not think that he did so because he objects to parental choice. From his speech, it appeared that he had not fully considered the provisions relating either to parental choice of to the assisted places scheme. The Opposition should be concerned about the image that they present in more than one respect. They constantly represent the bureaucracy. They are forever coming to debates and talking about the need to support and help the administration of housing, education and local authorities. Yet, as the so-called people's party, the Opposition seem to have little time for the choice and aspirations of those whom they claim to represent.
What can be more important for the so-called people's party than to take into account the considerations and aspirations of their constituents—whether on the question of having the opportunity to buy their local authority houses, or on the question of having an opportunity to make representations about the school in which their children will be educated?
The right hon. Gentleman asked a number of specific questions. He asked about appeals to the sheriffs, and whether they had been consulted about the new procedure. Indeed, they have been consulted and they have agreed to the procedure. He was wrong to suggest that school councils were to be excluded from consideration of transfer requests. There is no reason why they should be excluded. Indeed, we shall encourage them to be involved in the early stages of a request for a transfer. Many of them are already involved.
I turn to the relaxation of powers, and the fact that local authorities will be able, to a greater extent, to make decisions about the organisations of education in their areas. Local authorities welcome the proposals for the relaxation of controls proposed by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Millan: I said that the school councils in many areas, including Strathclyde, act as the appeals committees. Why cannot they continue to do so, instead of being supplanted by the provisions in the Bill?

Mr. Fletcher: We must provide a system that will be fair throughout the country. I do not believe that any local authority, within its power to look sympathetically at parents' requests, has anything to fear from the provisions in the Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman gave his support to the proposal to bring together teachers' pays and conditions of service. We very much welcome his support in that area.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) made clear the reasons why parental rights and choice are an important part of the Bill. He mentioned the rigid catchment zone. I know of his experience in his constituency and the number of complaints that he has received from disatisfied parents. They spring only too readily to mind. He mentioned the restriction on moving home, which I have already discussed, and the bureaucratic convenience that is supported by the Opposition party in preference to the wishes of parents and children.
Opposition Members suggested that the assisted places scheme involved privilege, or an extension of privilege. If we were to concede that the assisted places scheme is privileged—which we do not—why in all the world should the Opposition object to privilege being applied to low

income families? That is the total lack of logic evident in the arguments presented by almost every Opposition Member this evening.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South was worried about the need to record children before primary school age. We shall be happy to consider that in Committee. In particular, we shall be particularly happy to consider the question of deafness about which my hon. Friend, and my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson) are extremely concerned. My hon. Friend also mentioned the provisions for a maximum intake. It is unavoidable that some provisions should be included in the Bill. If an education authority tries to engineer an artificially low intake, parental appeals should force a remedy.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) said that we had no support for the Bill. We might not have support from the trade unions that represent teachers, but a recent opinion poll run by The Observer and the recent BBC Scotland programme, "Current Account" showed that there was considerable public support for the assisted places scheme. The hon. Gentleman drew a comparison between the provisions of the Tenants'Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act and the Bill. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Given all the years that the hon. Gentleman has spent in politics and the constituency that he represents, I do not know why he should be so determined to deny his constituents a choice in such an important aspect of their lives. We are trying to ensure that those of modest means will be given a new opportunity to expand their freedom of choice—whether in home owning or education—if they so wish. There is no compulsion. It is purely a matter of opening up opportunities that people may wish to take advantage of.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) emphasised the principle of reducing the amount of power held over people and of providing more choice. He asked us to ensure that no local authority would try to prevent the Bill from being effective, as some authorities have tried to frustrate tenants in their attempts to buy their local authority homes. Any Bill of this nature would require local authorities to act reasonably and responsibly. I am sure that they will do so, particularly as education authorities learn to respond to parents' wishes, and as parents learn to exercise their rights, to the benefit of classroom motivation and educational standards generally.
Any local authority that deals sympathetically with the requests of parents has nothing to fear from the Bill. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) mentioned public funds and the fact that between 1980–81 and 1981–82 the rate support grant will be reduced by about £20 million. Essentially, that is due to falling school rolls, which in turn will cause school closures. That should not surprise the hon. Gentleman. No valid complaint can be made against expenditure cuts. In 1981–82, expenditure per pupil in real terms will increase by £6. It cannot be considered insignificant if expenditure per pupil increases at a time when school rolls are falling. Any accusation that the Government are making slashing attacks on public expenditure is completely unjustified.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when school rolls fall the cost per pupil rises regardless of the quality of education being given? As an accountant, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that. Is it not better that


the Government should expend that additional £20 million on improvements in the pupil-teacher ratio? In that way, the quality of education can be improved.

Mr. Fletcher: We do not have to harp on about resources and increased expenditure to improve the quality of education. At a time of economic hardship it would be absurd to ignore falling school rolls when we prepare our budgets. The hon. Gentleman also complained that no progress had been made in dealing with the Munn and Dunning reports. The hon. Gentleman has been a little slow. Last month a progress report was issued on Munn and Dunning, and I commend it to the hon. Gentleman. We are anxious to ensure that progress is maintained in that important area..
My hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Lang) reminded us of the duties that parents have for the education of their children. I am glad that he did so. Local authorities, teachers and parents are in great danger of forgetting that. That goes against the principles by which Scottish education earned the respect of the world. The object of the Bill in dealing with parental choice, the assisted places scheme and special education needs, is to provide the opportunity for Scotland to recapture that respect.
I noted my hon. Friend's special pleading about secondary education in his constituency on grounds of extra finance and school closures. While I can do little about the former, I am glad that he accepts the latter. How local authorities use their resources is, of course, very much a matter for them.
My hon. Friend and others expressed anxiety about rural schools. The regulations will make it clear that outwith a certain distance my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's permission will be required on school closures. In other words, where the distance between schools in a rural area is more than a specified amount, the matter will automatically be referred to my right hon. Friend for his approval.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the question of assisted places and travelling costs. The number of schools in the scheme will be almost double that in the old grant-aided scheme. Under the grant-aided scheme, there were 22 schools. Under the assisted places scheme, there will be 41 schools. A 25-mile radius will qualify low-income families for travelling expenses, but 85 per cent. of the population of Scotland will, in fact, live within a 25-mile radius of schools in the assisted places scheme. That is a remarkable transformation compared with the scheme that we are abolishing in the legislation.
I listened to the strong nationalist noises of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire and his objection to English votes on Scottish Bills. I am sure that his English colleagues hope that from now on he will not exercise his Scottish vote on any English Bill. There is clearly something wrong with the air in South Ayrshire. To judge from the hon. Gentleman's record and that of his predecessor, it seems to attract the politically suicidal.
The whole object of the Bill, as my right hon. Friend and I have repeatedly pointed out, is to try to improve the quality of education through parental choice and to provide a statutory framework within which parents can choose the schools that their children attend. In doing that, a system of independent appeals will be set up with recourse to the sheriff where this is necessary. Education authorities will

be required to make information available to parents—and why not?—so that parents will have a reasonable amount of information on which to base their choice.
I was glad that the Educational Institute of Scotland generally welcomes the principle that parents should be allowed a measure of choice in the schools that their children attend, although it has some reservations about the machinery.
On the subject of special educational needs, the Bill implements the fundamental changes in attitude and approach to the education needs of handicapped children and young people recommended by the Warnock committee. I was glad to see from almost all of the speeches, perhaps more gradually in some than in others, that there seems to be a consensus of support and understanding of the desirability of introducing these proposals in Scotland as soon as possible.
We have, therefore, the prospect of producing, for the first time in 20 years, a Scottish education Bill of significance, which I believe will be well appreciated by the users of the education system in Scotland. I agree that it is slanted towards the consumer rather than the education authorities, and I make no apology for that, because it is in that area that the imbalance so clearly lies at the moment. That is why I have been astonished to hear one Labour spokesman after another defend the bureaucracy against the interests of the people they claim to represent.
That is what we are trying to put right in the Bill. We shall proceed through its stages in the House in the knowledge that the vast majority of the people of Scotland want us to do this and to give them a better choice in their children's education.

Question put,  That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 306, Noes 254.

Division No. 69]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Bruce-Gardyne, John


Aitken, Jonathan
Bryan, Sir Paul


Alexander, Richard
Buchanan-Smith, HonAlick


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Buck, Antony


Ancram, Michael
Bulmer, Esmond


Arnold, Tom
Burden, SirFrederick


Atkins, Robert(PrestonN)
Butcher, John


Atkinson, David(B'm'th, E)
Butler, HonAdam


Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Carlisle, John(Luton West)


Baker, Nicholas(NDorset)
Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)


Bell, SirRonald
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda


Bendall, Vivian
Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul


Benyon, Thomas(A 'don)
Chapman, Sydney


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Churchill, W.S. 


Best, Keith
Clark, Hon A.(Plym'th, S'n)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Clark, Sir W.(Croydon S)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clarke, Kenneth(Rushcliffe)


Biggs-Davison, John
Clegg, SirWalter


Blackburn, John
Colvin, Michael


Blaker, Peter
Cope, John


Body, Richard
Cormack, Patrick


Bonsor, SirNicholas
Costain, SirAlbert


Boscawen, HonRobert
Cranborne, Viscount


Bottomley, Peter(W'wich W)
Critchley, Julian


Bowden, Andrew
Crouch, David


Boyson, DrRhodes
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Braine, SirBernard
Dorrell, Stephen


Bright, Graham
Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ. 


Brinton, Tim
Dover, Denshore


Brittan, Leon
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Brooke, Hon Peter
Dunn, Robert(Dartford)


Brotherton, Michael
Durant, Tony


Brown, M.(BriggandScun)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Browne, John(Winchester)
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)






Eggar, Tim
Latham, Michael


Elliott, SirWilliam
Lawrence, Ivan


Emery, Peter
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Eyre, Reginald
Lee, John


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lennox-Boyd, HonMark


Faith, MrsSheila
Lester Jim (Beeston)


Farr, John
Lewis, Kenneth(Rutland)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Loveridge, John


Fisher, SirNigel
Luce, Richard


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Lyell, Nicholas


Fletcher-Cooke, SirCharles
McCrindle, Robert


Fookes, Miss Janet
Macfarlane, Neil


Forman, Nigel
MacGregor, John


Fowler, RtHon Norman
MacKay, John(Argyll)


Fox, Marcus
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. 


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
McNair-Wilson, M.(N'bury)


Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Fry, Peter
McQuarrie, Albert


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D. 
Madel, David


Gardiner, George(Reigate)
Major, John


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Marland, Paul


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Marlow, Tony


Glyn, Dr Alan
MarshallMichael(Arundel)


Goodhart, Philip
Marten, Neil (Banbury)


Goodlad, Alastair
Mates, Michael


Gorst, John
Mather, Carol


Gow, Ian
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Gower, Sir Raymond
Mawby, Ray


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mawhinney, DrBrian


Gray, Hamish
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Greenway, Harry
Mayhew, Patrick


Grieve, Percy
Mellor, David


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Grist, Ian
Miller, Hal(B'grove)


Grylls, Michael
Mills, lain(Meriden)


Gummer, JohnSelwyn
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Hamilton, Hon A. 
Miscampbell, Norman


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mitchell, David(Basingstoke)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Moate, Roger


Hannam, John
Monro, Hector


Haselhurst, Alan
Montgomery, Fergus


Hastings, Stephen
Moore, John


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Morgan, Geraint


Hawkins, Paul
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Hawksley, Warren
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hayhoe, Barney
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Mudd, David


Heddle, John
Murphy, Christopher


Henderson, Barry
Myles, David


Heseltine, RtHon Michael
Needham, Richard


Hicks, Robert
Nelson, Anthony


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L
Neubert, Michael


Hill, James
Newton, Tony


Hogg, HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)
Nott, Rt Hon John


Holland, Philip(Carlton)
Onslow, Cranley


Hooson, Tom
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S. 


Hordern, Peter
Osborn, John


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Parkinson, Cecil


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Parris, Matthew


Hunt, John(Ravensbourne)
Patten, Christopher(Bath)


Hurd, HonDouglas
Patten, John (Oxford)


lrving, Charles(Cheltenham)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Pawsey, James


Jessel, Toby
Pink, R.Bonner


JohnsonSmith, Geoffrey
Pollock, Alexander


Jopling, RtHonMichael
Porter, Barry


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Kaberry, SirDonald
Price, SirDavid(Eastleigh)


Kershaw, Anthony
Prior, Rt Hon James


Kimball, Marcus
Proctor, K. Harvey


King, Rt Hon Tom
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Kitson, SirTimothy
Raison, Timothy


Knight, MrsJill
Rathbone, Tim


Knox, David
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Lamont, Norman
Rees-Davies, W. R. 


Lang, Ian
Renton, Tim


Langford-Holt, SirJohn
Rhodes James, Robert



Rhys Williams, SirBrandon
Temple-Morris, Peter


Ridley, HonNicholas
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Ridsdale, Julian
Thompson, Donald


Rifkind, Malcolm
Thorne, Neil(llfordSouth)


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Thornton, Malcolm


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Townend, John(Bridlington)


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Rossi, Hugh
Trippier, David


Rost, Peter
Trotter, Neville


Sainsbury, HonTimothy
van Straubenzee, W. R. 


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N. 
Vaughan, DrGerard


Scott, Nicholas
Viggers, Peter


Shaw, Michael(Scarborough)
Waddington, David


Shelton, William(Streatham)
Wakeham, John


Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)
Waldegrave, HonWilliam


Shepherd, Richard
Walker, B. (Perth)


Shersby, Michael
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D. 


Silvester, Fred
Wall, Patrick


Sims, Roger
Waller, Gary


Skeet, T. H. H. 
Walters, Dennis


Smith, Dudley
Ward, John


Speller, Tony
Warren, Kenneth


Spence, John
Watson, John


Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Wells, John(Maidstone)


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wells, Bowen


Sproat, lain
Wheeler, John


Squire, Robin
Whitelaw, RtHon William


Stainton, Keith
Wickenden, Keith


Stanbrook, lvor
Wiggin, Jerry


Stanley, John
Wilkinson, John


Steen, Anthony
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Stevens, Martin
Winterton, Nicholas


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Wolfson, Mark


Stewart, A.(ERenfrewshire)
Young, SirGeorge(Actor)


Stokes, John
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stradling Thomas, J. 



Tapsell, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Robert(Croydon NW)
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Mr. Anthony Berry. 


Tebbit, Norman



NOES


Abse, Leo
Cook, Robin F. 


Adams, Allen
Cowans, Harry


Alton, David
Cox, T.(W'dsw'th, Toot'g)


Anderson, Donald
Craigen, J. M. 


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Crowther, J.S. 


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Cryer, Bob


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Ashton, Joe
Cunningham, G.(lslingtonS)


Atkinson, H.(H'gey, )
Cunningham, DrJ. (W'h'n)


Bagier, GordonA.T. 
Dalyell, Tam


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Davidson, Arthur


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Beith, A. J. 
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Benn, Rt Hon A. Wedgwood
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)


Bennett.Andrew(St 'kp 'tN)
Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)


Bidwell, Sydney
Deakins, Eric


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Boothroyd, MissBetty
Dewar, Donald


Bradley, Tom
Dixon, Donald


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dobson, Frank


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dormand, Jack


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Douglas, Dick


Brown, Hon(E'burgh, Leith)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'yS)
Dubs, Alfred


Callaghan, Jim(Midd't'n&amp;P)
Duffy, A. E. P. 


Campbell, Ian
Dunn, James A. 


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Dunnett, Jack


Canavan, Dennis
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G. 


Cant, R. B. 
Eastham, Ken


Carmichael, Neil
Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)


Cartwright, John
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
English, Michael


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Cohen, Stanley
Evans, loan (Aberdare)


Coleman, Donald
Evans, John (Newton)


Concannon, Rt Hon J.D. 
Ewing, Harry


Conlan, Bernard
Field, Frank






Fitch,Alan
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Flannery,Martin
Maxton,John


Fletcher,Raymond(llkeston)
Maynard,Miss Joan


Fletcher,Ted (Darlington)
Meacher,Michael


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mellish,RtHonRobert


Ford, Ben
Mikardo,lan


Forrester,John
Millan,Rt Hon Bruce


Foster,Derek
Miller, Dr M.S. (E Kilbride)


Foulkes,George
Mitchell,Austin(Grimsby)


Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Mitchell, R.C. (Soton Itchen)


Freeson,Rt Hon Reginald
Molyneaux,James


Freud,Clement
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


George,Bruce
Morton,George


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Ginsburg,David
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Golding,John
Newens,Stanley


Graham,Ted
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Grant,George(Morpeth)
Ogden,Eric


Grant, John (Islington C)
O'Neill,Martin


Grimond, Rt Hon J. 
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Hamilton,James(Bothwell)
Palmer,Arthur


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Park,George


Hardy, Peter
Parker,John


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Parry,Robert


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Pavitt,Laurie


Haynes, Frank
Pendry,Tom


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Penhaligon,David


Heffer, Eric S. 
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Hogg, N.(EDunb't'nshire)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Holland,S. (L'b'th,Vauxh'll)
Prescott,John


HomeRobertson,John
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Homewood,William
Race, Reg


Hooley,Frank
Radice,Giles


Horam,John
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Howell,Rt Hon D. 
Richardson,Jo


Howells,Geraint
Roberts,Allan(Bootle)


Huckfield,Les
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Hudson Davies, Gwilym E. 
Roberts,Gwilym(Cannock)


Hughes,Mark(Durham)
Robertson,George


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Janner,Hon Greville
Rooker, J.W. 


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Roper,John


John,Brynmor
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Ross,Wm.(Londonderry)


Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)
Rowlands,Ted


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ryman,John


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Sandelson, Neville


Kerr, Russell
Sheerman,Barry


Kilfedder,James A. 
Sheldon, Rt Hon R. 


KiIroy-Silk,Robert
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lambie,David
Short, Mrs Renée


Lamborn, Harry
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Lamond,James
Silkin, Rt Hon S.C. (Dulwich)


Leadbitter,Ted
Silverman,Julius


Lestor, Miss Joan
Skinner,Dennis


Lewis,Arthur(N'ham NW)
Snape,Peter


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Soley,Clive


Litherland,Robert
Spriggs,Leslie


Lofthouse,Geoffrey
Stallard,A.W. 


Lyon,Alexander(york)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


McCartney, Hugh
Stoddart, David


McCusker,H. 
Stott,Roger


McDonald, DrOonagh
Strang, Gavin


McElhone,Frank
Straw,Jack


McGuire,Michael(lnce)
Summerskill,HonDrShirley


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Maclennan,Robert
Thomas,Jeffrey(Abertillery)


McNally,Thomas
Thomas, DrR.(Carmarthen)


McTaggart,Robert
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


McWilliam,John
Tilley,John


Marks,Kenneth
Tinn,James


Marshall, D(G'gowS'ton)
Torney,Tom


Marshall,DrEdmund (Goole)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G. 


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wainwright,E.(Dearne V)


Martin,M(G'gowS'burn)
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)



Watkins,David
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Weetch,Ken
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)


Wellbeloved,James
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Welsh,Michael
Winnick,David


White, J. (G'gowPollok)
Woolmer,Kenneth


Whitehead,Phillip
Wrigglesworth,lan


Whitlock,William
Young, David (Bolton E)


Wigley,Dafydd



Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Tellers for the Noes: 


Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)
Mr. Ron Leighton and


Williams,SirT.(W'ton)
Mr. Allen McKay.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (NO. 2) [MONEY]

(Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to education in Scotland, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under that Act; and
(b) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of such moneys under any other Act.—[Mr. Alexander Fletcher.]

Orders of the Day — IRON AND STEEL (BORROWING POWERS) BILL

Ordered,

That, in respect of the Iron and Steel (Borrowing Powers) Bill, notices of amendments to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a Second time.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Orders of the Day — School Leavers (Index Project Training)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: It is a great privilege for me, on behalf of index project, a training scheme for school leavers, to explain to the Under-Secretary of State for Employment what index project training for school leavers really means, as briefly as I can, within the 15 minutes allotted to me.
First, local initiative is something to be commended and given support. Index project is a programme which involves the youth opportunities programme for jobs which exist now and for jobs in the future. The total annual cost will be approximately £200,000 for the first 18 months for 50 young people.
We need to ensure that a pattern of preparation for work is introduced and developed which will, first, provide the facilities to prepare young people for these occupations, and, second, offer education to make adaptable and versatile people recognise that such preparation involves education, and prepare them for life, as distinct from the narrower and traditional interpretation of providing the limited practical skills required in a particular job.
In the past, these young people would find work at 14 in low wage, low technology jobs. In an unstructured and unsystematic way, industry then prepared them for adult working life until they were paid adult rates at 21. Now they leave school at 16 and reach adult wages at 18.
The raising of the school leaving age and the lowering of the age of adulthood to 18, the Yom Kippur war and the subsequent oil crisis, employment protection legislation and rapidly accelerating technological changes all occurred at the same time. They coincided with the effects of moving from the fallow fifties to the swinging sixties some 16 years earlier, and together they have induced a steep change in the order of things.
The cumulative effect of these events is that industry no longer trains young people for adult working life through employment, and that there can be no reversal of the new order. If we fail to take new measures now to deal creatively and imaginatively with this group of young people, the ineluctible outcome will be a progressive deterioration in the standard of the work force, with resulting economic and social degradation.
To ensure the future, we must innovate. We must change conventional wisdom and recognise that work preparation for these young people can no longer be left to, or forced upon, the individual employer, with the Government taking no more than short-term palliative measures for the unemployed.
A federal project is required. In St. Helens, we are trying the federal approach by establishing index project, intended as a pilot project designed to be effective by means of a federation of the local authority and central Government in the new conditions now upon us. There is a growing national recognition that because the nation, as well as employers, benefit from a high quality work force, a national involvement in the preparation of the work force is required.
In St. Helens we take the view that local solutions to the problems should be adopted. Index project has been designed on that principle. Index project is not seen as an all-embracing answer to the problems of preparing young people for adult work.
A selection of opportunities is currently available, and should continue. These are higher education, further education, apprenticeships, the youth opportunities programme for the unemployed and based on local industrial requirements. All the evidence points to a shrinking opportunity for juvenile employment in the years leading to adult, unskilled employment—this the only sector not overtly supported by the nation.
However, index does not demand that the cost should be borne by the Government. It should be shared by those who benefit, including the nation. Nor does it accept that the education service solely can undertake the cost and free employers from accepting the responsibilities and training for the immediate job.
Index project is an innovation by a town willing to face up to its responsibilities for the future. We ask the Government to play their part.
The commitment of the Government to the youth opportunities programme is an admirable first step in that direction. But it is only a first step. These measures do not conclusively bridge the gap between leaving school and adult work. Nor do they demand an equivalent commitment to the young people from employers who traditionally, or now more increasingly, confine their recruitment to adults.
The local commitment to index is growing constantly. For example, Pilkington Brothers currently has one manager actively in the development of the scheme and the

provision of facilities and a specialist assistant to assist him, at an approximate cost of £11,000. National Westminster Bank has one manager actively assisting in the development of the project, at a cost per annum of £9,000. There are other organisations, such as Barclays Bank, which plays a major role in preparing the project for when it gets off the ground. We hope that it will commence in April, when an Index Co. Ltd. will be set up as a limited company and then, of course, the real work will commence.
Local authority accepts its role as an employer as well as representing the community itself. Every effort will be made by council offices to identify premises which will be suitable for the operation of index project. The borough council will endeavour to give whatever financial support it can. Such support could be through the provision of a specific grant, or to assist in meeting operational costs of index and/or granting rating relief, depending upon the circumstances at any one time.
At least 50 firms, collectively employing 41,000 workers—that is, 68 per cent. of the working population in the metropolitan district—accept the need and the concept. They intend to participate in the project when it gets off the ground. They are willing to consider secondment of personnel to the project. Each of the 50 firms will recruit from the young people who complete their contract under the index scheme. Clearly from time to time assistance will vary according to circumstances. Everybody understands that not all firms that make a commitment will be able to continue that commitment.
Several firms have agreed to second their staff for training purposes at their own cost. Currently firms are co-operating with index in identifying the job content of their own employees occupations. The work is carried out with the assistance of the Food, Drink and Tobacco Industry Board as the first phase of the design of the index training programme.
The trade union movement and the work force in St. Helens will be fully committed to the concept and the project. Each participating group will be represented on the board of the company—Index Project Ltd. The estimated funding requirement of about £200,000 per annum represents about £2,600 per annum, per trainee, including national insurance contributions which will be returned to the Exchequer. The figures are contained in appendix D. The Minister is welcome to a copy of it.
The Rainford Trust has shown its support for the project with a grant of £10,000 and it has pledged a continuing interest in the project. Pilkington Brothers is to grant £50,000. Barclays and National Westminster Banks are playing a major role in the project.
Unemployed young person's benefit amounts to £670 a year. Under the youth opportunities programme training workshop financing, the Exchequer can bear costs of about £2,300 per annum, per trainee, even though the scheme does not deal with the real need to bridge the gap conclusively between school and adult employment. The index project conclusively bridges the gap between school and training. On completion of 18 months training young persons are recruited directly into employment on a permanent basis by one of the 50 firms supporting the project.
St. Helens and the young people in the catchment area owe a great deal to Mr. W. K. Atherton, the head of Pilkington Brothers group training department, for the excellent work on the original design which is now


christened the "index project." We owe our deepest gratitude to all our the public-spirited people who have indicated their support for St. Helens school leavers and their future. We owe them all deepest gratitude. It gives me pleasure to commend the index project to the House and to call on the Government to give it their blessing and financial support.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison): I am delighted that we have the opportunity for a proper debate on the matter raised by the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs). About three weeks ago, we had only about one minute's debate on the hon. Gentleman's private Member's motion. He informed me that he was likely to raise the matter on the Adjournment. I said that I would be pleased if he did so and I am delighted to be able to debate the matter as carefully as I can.
When I was a new boy, I was frightened when I came to the House for the first time. I will always owe the hon. Gentleman a great personal debt because when I was due to attend my first meeting of the 1922 Committee in Room 14 I did not know where the Room was and I asked the hon. Gentleman, even though I did not know him at the time. We were in the bowels of the House and he kindly took me all the way up to Committee Room 14. He will not remember that, but I do, and I shall always be grateful to him.
As has been well demonstrated tonight, the hon. Gentleman has always taken a close interest in the index training scheme. If I may say so, without sounding incredibly pompous, I admire the interest that he has taken, because I also believe that there is much to be said for the scheme.
The hon. Gentleman and I are neighbours in the North-West. Our constituencies are not far apart. We share the concern, felt by all hon. Members, about young people who cannot find a job. I hope that, when I say that I am concerned about what is happening in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, he realises that it comes from the heart, because I am just down the road from him and I know the problems of St. Helens personally rather than from a distance.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I welcome any initiative taken by any individual or group of individuals or companies to help young people without work. I was interested to hear the figures quoted by the hon. Gentleman. He said that the scheme put to the MSC would cost £200,000 for 50 young people. I am sure that the commission is aware of the figures and will take them carefully into account.
The Government cannot do the whole thing on their own. We rely on co-operation from many bodies. That is why the index project is encouraging to me. The Government welcome the idea of individuals coming forward with schemes so that perhaps we can put a catalyst together to get the show on the road. In that respect, the sponsors of the scheme have my full support.
I was also interested to hear the hon. Gentleman refer to the St. Helens scheme as a federal solution. My eyebrows rose, but then I realised exactly what he meant. It was the right way of putting it. Local authorities as well as Government, industry and trade unions should all be involved, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman about a federal solution.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I am reasonably new to my job. Therefore, I had to do a bit of what I would call "educating Archie" to ascertain the exact nature of the index scheme. I must admit that on my Cheshire network I have heard about it, but only briefly, over the past two years. I have tried my best to get to the bottom of the scheme and to examine it carefully. I gather that the index project has already put two proposals to the Manpower Services Commission. It would not be in the interests of the House if we went over that ground again. We have to examine the third proposal and determine where we can help.
The main difficulty with the third proposal is that the scheme's sponsors say that the young people involved would be on the scheme for 22 months whereas the rules of the youth opportunities programme are that they should be on it for only 12 months. We have a divide of 10 months. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, although there can be—I hope that there will be—a compromise, the YOP programme must have some rules, not least because it is spending vast amounts of taxpayers' money. We must have some rules laid down, otherwise one would not be able to help via the programme as many young unemployed as are helped at present.
Through the YOP programme three times as many young people will be helped in 1981–82 compared with 1978–79. There is a vast increase in the programme. In 1981–82 440,000 young people will have the opportunity to take up a place under the programme providing that they have been unemployed for three months.
The Government are caring and are doing their bit. However, there is still a gap between the index scheme and the 10-month rule. What do we do? The hon. Gentleman said that Mr. Atherton has been a tremendous supporter and sponsor of the scheme. I gather that Mr. Atherton has written to the Manpower Services Commission asking for a meeting. I gather, too, that Mr. Holland from the MSC replied on 6 Febmary—I may be wrong on the exact day—saying that the commission was still considering some support and that a meeting would be forthcoming.
I hope, like the hon. Gentleman, that the meeting will be forthcoming and that it will be as productive as is possible. The divide is 10 months. I hope that both sides will consider carefully how each can help the other. I can give the hon. Gentleman a personal undertaking that as the Minister in this place who answers for these matters—my noble Friend the Minister of State, Lord Gowrie, is responsible in another place—I shall follow carefully the developments in the negotiations subsequent to the letter sent by Mr. Holland to Mr. Atherton. If there is anything that I or my noble Friend Lord Gowrie can do to help along the negotiations, we shall do it on behalf of not just the hon. Gentleman but his constituents.
I hope that I have given the hon. Gentleman the idea that I am concerned that we should, within reason, come to a happy conclusion of this event. There is no doubt that when a group of individuals—they are companies, but individuals are sponsoring the project—get together and try to do something constructive, the Government should do what they can to help, within reason.
I gather that the new company—Industrial Experience Projects Ltd.—has agreed to sponsor a project-based work experience scheme, under the youth opportunities programme. The hon. Gentleman said that he thought that it would go ahead in April. I hope that it will be as soon as that. I have been led to believe that it would probably


be the autumn, but we need not quibble over the date at the moment. I gather that a "fit" is going on in one respect, but there is a "non-fit" in another respect.
I cannot reiterate enough my admiration of all the sponsors who have got together and tried to organise a scheme. It is the sort of ethos of life that I wish to promote and that the Government would wish to promote, because we believe that individuals or companies are better at doing things than Governments are on their behalf. I applaud everything that they have done. I hope that the matter will come to a successful fruition, provided that the companies understand the obvious constraints which we are under with regard to taxpayers' money. I am sure that they will understand them.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this important matter. It is important not just to him as the constituency Member. If we get the scheme going, it would be an example which other parts of the country could follow. I hope that the hon. Gentleman realises how grateful I am to him that he has raised the matter. At the beginning of his speech he talked about the fallow 'fifties and the swinging 'sixties. I thought that my speech could not live up to that alliteration. It has not, but I hope that he realises how sincere I am in reacting to the thoughts that he has put to the House this evening.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.